Posted on 07/11/2014 8:39:01 AM PDT by kristinn
It’s now the extreme dividing line among the GOP’s base: Do you want to impeach the president or not? Why Republicans with long memories are worried about where all this is headed.
There was a time not long ago when leaders in the Republican Party favored a cap-and-trade system to deal with the threat of global warming. And there was a time when the party coalesced around the idea of immigration reform. There was a time when it seemed suicidal to much of the party to not raise the debt ceiling.
But each of those issues shifted quickly at some point to become dividing lines for the base, one in which being on the wrong side meant talk-radio ridicule and threats of a primary challenge.
The latest out-of-left field litmus test? Do you want to impeach President Obama, or not?
This particular line entered the bloodstream this week thanks to Sarah Palin, who on Tuesday authored an op-ed on Breitbart News in which she wrote that “Enough is enough of the years of abuse from this president. His unsecured border crisis is the last straw that makes the battered wife say, ‘no mas.’”
On Wednesday, the influential talk-radio host Mark Levin, who has previously called for the president’s impeachment, endorsed Palin’s comments. “She stands with the Framers. So, what is [House Speaker John] Boehner’s answer? What are the Republicans going to do? They’re going to wait for the next election? That doesn’t fix it.”
The notion of an impeachment has created such a flurry that it has become a question that seemingly all Republicans must now answer questions about, whether in the halls of Congress or on the campaign trail. A cadre of top Republicans has pushed back on the idea,...
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
Reality is the trend line, absolute numbers are in a vacuum. The average for second midterm is that the opposing part gains 30 house seats and 6 senate seats. Instead in 1998 the GOP lost 5 in the house and broke even in the senate. One of the worst outings in US political history, a combined total of 41 seats BELOW the average. Look at what Bush faced in his congress and tell me his presidency wouldn’t have been a lot more effective if the GOP had gained those seats in 98 instead of losing them. Heck look at the situation Obama deals with now and think about how different it would be if we’d gained those seats in 98, most of those guys would still be in office today. Now look at the probability of a GOP presidency in 2016 and tell me what kind of congress you’d rather he have. You’ve got to play the long game, Obama will NOT be convicted, he will NOT be ejected from office. There’s no reason to sacrifice GOP congressional numbers tilting at windmills AGAIN, learn the lessons of recent history.
If the Tea Party side gets their impeachment they’ll be just as stupid as they insist the GOPe is. At least e has bothered to learn the lessons of the Clinton impeachment.
I never disagreed with that point.
I said that impeachment energizes our base.
Shouldn't take a rocket scientist to understand that.
It is you who is too stubborn to admit that.
Sorry, I never have been nor will I ever be a movementarian. I’m a conservative, actual core values conservative, not a bandwagon jumper in either direction. Also a student of history, which is a big reason why I don’t join populist movements, I know how they end, and it’s usually sad.
Under the 25th Amendment, if the Vice Presidency is vacant, the President appoints a Vice President, who then needs to be confirmed by the Senate and the House.
So, to plant Boehner (or hopefully a more suitable successor as Speaker) in the Oval Office, would require first removing Obama, and then Biden, having stalled confirmation of his VP pick.
On second thought, it might be better to remove Biden first, stall Obama's VP replacement, then remove Obama. That way, if Obama is to be pardoned, he has to do it himself.
We can dream.
No.
Absolute numbers are the indication what percentage of the electorate likes what you are doing.
Plain. Simple. Reality.
The Republicans in the House had their second best election in the House since 1948 after they impeached Bill Clinton.
But in a vacuum they lose all meaning. Yes the GOP finished the 98 midterm with a majority, which sounds good in the vacuum. But they lost seats in the house, so it was bad, and worse it was a midterm that historical trends says they should have gained seats in both chambers, so it was VERY bad.
Sorry but no. The GOP in the house had their WORST election since Barry Goldwater didn’t understand he was running against Kennedy’s ghost. History says they should have gained 30 seats instead they lost 5. When you perform at -35 from historical trends that’s TERRIBLE and casting it as anything else is simply self delusion. You can lie to yourself if you must, but if you put it in public I’ll point out that you are 100% wrong. The GOP got their asses soundly kicked in 98, and that happened ENTIRELY because of the impeachment.
I agree with a lot of the original ideas of the Tea Party, but they’ve lost focus, because largely a collection of angry people that are willing to say they’re conservative (and some might actually be). And the goals are primarily focused on anger. Impeachment is an angry move, sounds good on paper, get’s the crowds cheering. In practice it energizes the other side and angers the middle, not to mention that if it succeeds it actually helps the sitting VP (who almost never win the presidency normally) by giving him a chance to separate himself from his predecessor. There’s actually a really good chance that if we’d convicted Clinton and freed Gore to throw him under the bus that could have been enough to push Gore over the top in 2000.
In the long run conservatism is actually helped out by 2 more years of Obama making sure everything liberal looks as stupid and doomed to failure as possible.
No.
For example if a baseball team has its best regular season since 1948 and wins 105 games and then the next season has it's next best regular season since 1948 and wins 103 games it would be utterly absurd to describe their last regular season as being "very bad" and "getting their asses kicked", but that's what you are doing.
You can lie to yourself if you must, but if you put it in public I’ll point out that you are 100% wrong.
I was wracking my brain to figure out where you're wrong. The thing is, Republicans were the minority party in the House for most of the years since 1948. So of course, the elections where they had the most seats since 1948 would all have to be after 1994 (when they finally won a majority in the House).
What counts is how many votes swing in a given election. If you have a massive win in 1994 and hold most of those seats for the next few elections, those elections aren't as impressive a mandate as that original 1994 victory. They're more a reflection of the voters' willingness to re-elect incumbents.
I don't know how to weigh the GOP retaining a majority in 1998 and 2000 against their losing seats in both elections, but there have been other elections since 1948 where a lot more seats changed hands that were more of a positive mandate for Republicans. So voters didn't repudiate Republicans in 2000 for impeaching Clinton, but they didn't reward them as much as they did in some other elections.
No what counts is how many seats you have.
Baseball seasons are individual events, one year means nothing for the next, who won the world series one year has no impact on who will win the series the next. There’s an ebb and flow to elections, the last set of results DO impact the next. Historically midterms are bad for the party of the sitting president, and the second midterm is much worse than the first. And that historical trend changes the meaning.
There’s a reason why 1998 was the first time in 64 years the party of the sitting president gained seats in the midterm AT ALL and the first time in 176 years it happened in the second midterm. The GOP misplayed their hand, period.
I’m not lying to myself. I’m pointing out simple reality. No matter how far you stick your fingers in your ears, no matter how loud you yell “LALALALALALA” the GOP LOST the 1998 Congressional elections. That is a simple historical fact. And we’re done until you can admit it. Don’t bother to reply, because I already know your reply will be at best foolish.
That’s how it started, and that’s when it was good and made sense. Now it’s a bunch of angry people who just hate Obama and don’t care why, and now they want to impeach him and they don’t care that such an effort is doomed to failure and would actually set conservatism back at least a decade.
AND House elections are individual events. All House members run every election cycle.
No matter how far you stick your fingers in your ears, no matter how loud you yell “LALALALALALA” the GOP LOST the 1998 Congressional elections. That is a simple historical fact. And we’re done until you can admit it. Don’t bother to reply, because I already know your reply will be at best foolish.
Okay never mind. I've been responding to a dumbass.
This is something of a glass half-empty glass half-full argument. Voters didn't repudiate Republicans in a major way after impeachment, but they didn't reward them after impeachment in a major way either (which is something that talk of the GOP's best election in 50 years implies). But I suppose I'm not going to convince you.
- impeach + imprison
Second best landslide for them since '48, yes. But a slight shift away from their best year, the previous cycle.
As I posted in posted 51, if a baseball team has its best regular season since 1948 and wins 105 games and then the next season has it's next best regular season since 1948 and wins 103 games, how would you describe that?
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.