Posted on 07/09/2014 9:53:49 PM PDT by Bratch
Every Republican has three options on impeachment. One: “Let’s do it. He’s got it coming.” As far as I know, no one in Congress has joined Palin in taking that approach since her op-ed at Breitbart went live yesterday, although I’m sure there’s a constituency for it in the House. Someone should ask Tim Huelskamp or Michele Bachmann. Two: “Hell no. It’s political suicide.” Lots of Republicans believe that, McCain and Boehner foremost among them, but they don’t want to say so publicly or else they’ll be attacked from the right for putting expediency above principle. Erick Erickson, who’s no one’s idea of a RINO, is bolder than they are in making the case today at Red State.
Thus, option three: “He’s got it coming, but alas, it won’t work. Democrats are too corrupt to join us in the effort.” That’ll be the default position for Republican pols since it lets them shift blame while achieving suicide-avoidance. The mystery with Cruz was whether he’d choose door number one or number three. He wants to preserve his cred as Mr. Tea Party ahead of 2016 but, after having spearheaded the “defund” effort, he also doesn't want to get knocked again as a guy who’s willing to bet lots of Republican political capital on lost causes. His interview with Mark Levin on Monday night suggested that he was in the “he’s got it coming but it won’t work” camp.
And, per National Review, he is.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Nixon resigned because congressional members of his own party, led by Barry Goldwater made the walk to the White House, and told him to resign or he would be impeached, and removed from office.
At this time there is not one Congressional Democrat that would consider making that trip to the White House.
It was a debacle because the GOP cowered from defending it’s actions. No other reason.
>> Then,they should let Obama be Obama [with his wacko policies]- let him sink the DEMs in the 2016 presidential race.<<
What???? My God what are some of you thinking? He’s not sinking the Democrats he’s destroying our country!! He’s ruining our lives!! And you wanna let him continue his “wacko policies!”
Well my God. I’m about ready to give up.
When you see a thread filled with ‘conservatives arguing against the constitutional remedy for the situation, then yes, it probably is.
You are talking about a moral obligation not the law....impeaching O will go nowhere in Reid’s senate and could well insure a conservative blood bath for decades to come. Did you forget the elections after Clinton was impeached?
Even the founders knew that their are times you do one thing and not another for the good of the whole. We as an electorate must do more to get conservatives elected. We cannot allow the politician class to continue to abuse us. If we are not willing to face reality we will not succeed. Impeach O and you will definitely get Hilary in the WH.
Make Buckwheat a laughingstock, and the Dems will disown him.
I am talking about upholding a legally binding oath. I am talking about upholding the laws on the books, not some hypothetical here.
They have a duty. A legal obligation to the constitution.
Period.
The senate behaved in Avery protective mode. They wanted to preserve their own power...that was both parties. Many in the senate then are still there. With Reid as majority leader an impeachment trial will never occur.
It is important to pick your battles lest you do more harm than good
You either belive in the constitutional remedy and by extension the authority of the constitution itself to govern us or you don’t.
Do you or not? you do not get to pick and choose.
>> the constitutional remedy
a constitutional remedy
Sure...the other being to leave a man in power who has committed HCAM. Thus no rule of law.
you need a “ment”.
I agree with you.
You are delusional...if you were at the founding you would have sunk the constitution because the slavery issue was not dealt with. The terms of high crimes and misdemeanors means what the congress says it means. Because congress has ceded power to the president over the years you would be better off complaining about all since Wilson onward....maybe even teddy Roosevelt onward.
Again cite where the constitution says they must....it doesn’t which means they are not required. Defense of the country and the constitution is done in many ways not just impeachment.
“Uphold and protect the constitution”
How do you do that by ignoring the constitution’s remedy?
But you didn’t answer my simple and direct question. Will you?
You’re right this is just disheartening and disgusting.
I can’t decide which disgusts me more, the fact of all this lawlessness that is taking place, I mean, I feel like I’m in the ocean with a serious rip current, before you can catch your breath, another wave hits.
I can’t decide if it’s that or all the contortionists and their “twisting” to justify cowardess.
That's good advice.
You act as if impeachment is the only solution the constitution provides. You are angry at O and his admin fair enough. The left has always been willing to chip away and get to their goal. Powers that congress has can and should be exercised. Unfortunately they are not.
It is not a matter of picking and choosing. In spite of what you claim, you do not show and understanding of our constitution at all
Keep talking, Sarah. We hear you. Time as come to restring the puppet, so to speak.
I did answer your question you just don’t like the answer. Defend and protect does not REQUIRE impeachment.
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.