Yes, by all means, let’s impeach the president for employing “czars” and completely ignoring the economy presiding over more than two straight years of uninterrupted job growth. You know what I want to see? Just once, I want to see one of the Republicans respond to a crazy constituent at a townhall meeting with the verbal abuse they deserve. “Impeach the president? For what? Are you crazy? Do you need to see a doctor?”
Something like that would do nicely.
And it they are going to entertain impeachment, they should do it for a real reason. They can find things on the margins if they want to. Questioning whether or not the administration followed the law during the operation in Libya is at least worthy of debate.
The stupidity that passes for political debate in this country is far beyond being out of control.
impeachment charge?
being President while Black.
nothing more.
nothing less.
one of the commenters at maddows’ blog nailed it:
sounds about right, eh.
And the word “assassinate” begets a well-deserved visit from the Secret Service and a potential one-way ticket to GitMo…
.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."There are some attacks that have to be answered right away. There are others where the best response is, let them yammer. I think this is one of the latter.
The first call I saw for Obama’s impeachment came before he was inaugurated. None of the ones I’ve seen since then have been any more grounded in reality.
Imagine what the right would do if the Obama administration actually had any serious scandal, as opposed to B-Grade scandals like Fast and Furious or pure inventions like the birth certificate nonsense. The fact that Obama, just about uniquely among post-WWII first-term presidents, hasn’t had any serious scandals at all, must drive the more discerning ones nuts.
The late novelist Irving Wallace anticipated the wingnuts in his 1965 novel “The Man,” in which Wallace featured an African-American house speaker who becomes President when the president and vice-president are killed when a building collapses in Germany. The fictional president is impeached when he is falsely accused of a sexual attack on a senator’s daughter. I think the wingnuts might have borrowed this play to use against Bill Clinton, although in Clinton’s case he was impeached for lying about having sex with Monica Lewinsky.
I never read the book, but a friend did when it was new and said it was very very good. It’s out of print, but those who own a kindle (I don’t) can get it:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Man-Irving-Wallace/dp/067103894X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=13
34275907&sr=1-1
Impeach Obama? On what grounds? I didn’t hear about him getting a B.J. from an intern.
So far, beginning with Justice Chase (and Thomas Jefferson), impeachment has had a pretty sorry history for actually being about “high crimes and misdemeanors” instead of political point-scoring.
And the instances of high crimes and misdemeanors in fact (Nixon, Bush, Cheney) have gone unpunished. “Impeachment” upon conviction means that one is no longer qualified to hold public office of any kind. Or at least that’s what it was supposed to mean when the Constitution was written.
But because it takes a supermajority to convict, one has to have both parties agree that the conduct was so egregious as to require banning from public office.
Well, here in Illinois, our former Governor was impeached by some lopsided number. I don’t remember the yes vote count but the ONLY no vote was cast by his sister-in-law. That’s very close to 100%.
And Nixon only resigned because Barry Goldwater told him there were not enough Republican votes to save him and he, Barry, would vote for impeachment. Of course, that’s your father’s GOP. (OK, TarheelDem, I know you are old enough to remember, but I couldn’t resist using the phrase.)