To impeach or not to impeach, that is the question
I noticed an argument in the comments section between the pro-impeachment and the con-impeachment forces.
For example, from “Truth Unites…and Divides,” we have:
Refusal to [impeach Obama] speaks to cowardice. Cowardice wildly breeds disgust, disdain, cynicism, and apathy towards the governmental system…
The GOP wants to make a difference? Remove the lawless tyrant Obola from office. PERIOD.
Bring a neutered Biden in for one year as POTUS.
Commenter “J.J.” says, on the other hand:
The Republicans must fight smart. Charging into a battle they can’t win such as impeachment is a trap that the progs hope the GOP will fall into. The coverage by the MSM would be the equivalent of Abu Ghraib. Impeachment would be somewhat the equivalent of the violent protests the progs are now engaged in. Those protest tactics, though covered sympathetically by the MSM, are turning off a lot of LIVs, just as impeachment would.
There’s more, but that’s the gist of it.
We’ve had this argument before. I see it as another example of what I’d call the DonQuixote/SanchoPanza dichotomy.
I have an emotional foot (mixed metaphor alert) in the quixotic “Truth Unites” camp. I detest Obama’s lawless defiance of the Constitution, and I would like nothing better than to see him lawfully removed for it. In fact, I would have liked the removal to have happened a long time ago, since the damage he’s done in the international field, and to the rule of law and separation of powers in this country, has been enormous, immeasurable, and perhaps irrevocable.
But I am a practical sort. I do not believe in tilting at windmills to make a point that is a good one but that will not and cannot be perceived as such, will widely be regarded as motivated by sheer animus (and racism), will almost certainly cause a backlash—and most importantly, cannot and will not succeed. The right may see the failure to impeach as cowardice, but the left would see it as a laughable, theatrical, and completely futile gesture that will backfire and play perfectly into their hands.
I wrote as much a year ago, in January of 2013:
…[I]f Obamacare goes forward and things get worse, and the Republicans win the Senate in 2014 (even if they don’t get over 2/3 of the seats there, which they almost certainly won’t), and Obama’s approval ratings drop into the cellar (low 30s or less), then there’s a chance. The public might get behind impeachment/conviction, and it’s theoretically possible (although unlikely) that even a few Democrats might come along.
That’s the only way it could happen, and I give it an infinitesimally small chance of coming about. But one thing is certain: now is most definitely not the time for impeachment. Ralph Waldo Emerson is reputed to have said, “When you strike at a king, you must kill him.” He was supposed to have been responding to a student “who had told Emerson that he was writing an essay about, and presumably critical of, Plato.” Emerson wasn’t talking about literally killing Plato, who had been dead for quite some time. He was talking about knowing how to chose the right time and way to undermine a person regarded as a great and powerful man.
The same is true of impeaching Obama: don’t start unless you have the votes in the Senate to convict, and the support of the American people, or you will end up hurting yourself.
Obama’s ratings are not in the depth of the cellar. Republicans still don’t have 2/3 of the Senate. Nowhere near enough Democrats would join them in a vote for conviction. Impeachment would make Obama a temporary martyr and he is perfectly okay with that, especially since he’d be victorious at the end of the day.
So I say to those who would agree with “Truth Unites,” how do you propose that Republicans actually “Remove the lawless tyrant Obola from office, PERIOD”? If you can’t do it, empty gestures are counterproductive.
“will almost certainly cause a backlash–and most importantly, cannot and will not succeed.”
I don’t know about that. I don’t know about the “cannot” part. I think it’s possible.
Interestingly, I just watched the movie “300” a couple of days ago. I’ve heard of the movie for awhile, and what sort of motivated me to watch it was that I saw a number of commenters on other threads close their comments with “Molon Labe.” I had no idea what that meant, and I had to look it up. It means “Come and take them” in response to the command “Surrender Your Weapons.” And the saying is supposed to originate from the famous battle from which the movie “300” is inspired by.
It was 300 Spartan soldiers against the thousands or hundreds of thousands of soldiers that the Persian army had.
Those 300 honorably brave soldiers took out far more of the enemy than they suffered, and ultimately, they paved the way for the Greeks to prevail over the Persians in another later battle.
But it was their COURAGE that made the future victory possible.
Did the “300” have a chance against the immensely huge Persian army? No, not really. But it built up the courage of the initial cowards.
Moreover, an impeachment and removal has a far greater chance of succeeding than the “300” did against the King Xerxes and the Persians.
P.S. More to come. On Courage versus useless Cowardice masked by Sophistry.
Yes, impeachment would make the messiah a martyr, and the msm would have 2 years of ‘well respected’ pundits and legal scholars explaining to livs how there are no constitutional grounds for impeachment and conviction. If the gop does not want to retain control of the senate in 2016 and once again lose the white house impeachment is an excellent strategy.
I loathe dear leader as much as he loathes the rule of law. But starting a fight you can not win is incredibly stupid no matter how righteous it makes you feel. There are many ways to push back against bho-msm if (big word) the gop leadership plays its hand with cunning. The 2014 election was a referendum on the democrats inside the beltway and in the majority of states. A telling example was the Maryland governor’s race. The gop should act accordingly.
Why not a vote to censure the President by both Chambers? It would embarrass the bastard without making him a martyr. Furthermore the censure could enumerate everything from the apology tour, the medal of freedom for Israel hater Mary Robinson, the Cairo speech and Honduras to getting illegal information from the IRS and violating the separation of powers. Better yet the Obama media would have to report it or look like complete clowns. They would try to spin it but denying things like lying about the ACA would more energy than they have.
Presidential censure covers everything and risks nothing.
“But I am a practical sort. I do not believe in tilting at windmills to make a point that…will almost certainly cause a backlash–and most importantly, cannot and will not succeed.”
Which is why America is lost ad declining in freedom at ALL levels. And why all my Tea Party intellectual friends are planning and acting to exit the US for freer pastures.
The American experiment is over – stick a fork – it’s failed and done, well-done.
TUaD, the GOP must have 60+ good men/women and true in the Senate to do this. They don’t. No Dem will defect. It would be a feel-good futile gesture. Emphasis on FUTILE.
Truth Unites:
If you think it is possible, that’s what I mean by calling you Don Quixote.
Tell me who the Democratic senator votes are that will put the effort over the top? If all Republicans stand firm, that would be 53 or 54 (the latter number if Cassidy beats Landrieu). Then there might be someone like Angus King, who is Independent but caucuses with the Democrats ordinarily. That would make 55 if everyone sticks together, and it’s not clear they would. So, where would the additional 12 votes come from? Do you think 12 Democrats will have an attack of conscience? Name them, please. They don’t exist—unfortunately.
Until Obama’s approval rating goes down to 30 or so, they won’t exist. Even then, I doubt they’d come forward, but at least there would be a chance. Right now, absolutely not.
In a physical battle such as the one the Spartans faced that you have referenced, such a thing is more possible because courage can allow fewer men to do great deeds in a battle (at least it could back in the days when combat was pretty much hand-to-hand, and required physical strength and daring). But a vote in the Senate isn’t subject to the same forces. Do you really think that Democratic senators will be cowed by the courage of the Republicans in an impeachment trial, enough to vote for conviction and go against what they see as their own interests? I’m sorry, but “quixotic” is the kindest thing I can call you if you believe that.
Also, see this [emphasis mine]:
The Greeks did not ignore the practical; they understood the practical considerations and used them to their advantage. However, the Greeks LOST that battle, although they are remembered for their bravery, and served as inspiration later [emphasis mine]:
I agree with Neo 100%. We need to keep our powder dry. It’s not time to impeach yet. Obama is probably just getting started in his lawlessness. If he does, eventually his behavior will become so outrageous that the American people will unite behind congress if they impeach.
I read Jim Rogan’s book on his role in the impeachment. He was one of the House Managers.
In the book Rep. Rogan recounted how tough it was and how clueless the Senators were.
There are zero Dem votes to impeach regardless of what Obama has done or would do.
I was particularly distressed with the conduct of some Republican Senators, especially Santorum. The Rickster didn’t even want them to try the case!
NeoNeoCon: “So, where would the additional 12 votes come from? Do you think 12 Democrats will have an attack of conscience? Name them, please.”
Dismissed with laughter and a handwave.
#1. If it were to come to a vote by the Senate, I’m already as happy and delighted as pie that the House has already impeached Obola.
#2. All those votes go on record. That is a *huge* win. Re-elections come up. Identify the politicians who voted to uphold lawlessness and identify the politicians who wanted to remove corrupt lawlessness.
#3. RINO Cowardice about the MSM. You actually want Liars to Lie. You want Liars to use a multiplicity of words. You want Tyrannical Liars to do everything they can to control “the narrative.” Flush the tyrannical liars out. This will come back to bite them.
#4. How often did you read about Democrat politicians distancing themselves from Obola during the recent 2014 election season?
You’re doing a HUGE favor to Dem senators by not giving them a chance to vote on conviction. They don’t ever want to be on the hook. With ObolaCare premium increases happening, you don’t think there’s going to be LIV outrage about ObolaCare?
Put the question of impeachment and conviction to the Dems and RINOs. SHINE THE LIGHT
Otherwise Cowardice and Disdain and Abandoned Trust in the Government.
CHOOSE.
Once again, the issue of impeachment is broached and ignored once again is the American people. They do not have the stomach for it, despite the powerful role the media would have in the process.
The public would push back with fervor seen in 1998, 1999, 2000.
Ignore it.
So be it.
Truth Unites:
Whose laughter, and whose handwave?
Do you hear me laughing? I am completely and totally serious: the votes aren’t there, and it is folly to think they are. Or to not care that they’re not.
You would be “happy and delighted as pie that the House has already impeached” Obama, no matter if the Senate cannot convict and no matter if the impeachment is a move that’s unpopular with about 75% of America and would cause a backlash.
Bully for you and your delight, Don Q. But the rest of us actually are not laughing. Nor will most Americans see the Democrats’ votes against conviction as reflecting poorly on them. Why would they? They would see them as heroes, holding the line against the vindictive, power-mad, and racist Republicans.
Refraining from an conducting an impeachment circus may emboldened BHO and his team to do something so egregious that he damages the Democrat’s appeal for a majority of voters for a very long time.
If the recent election results were any indication, BHO may have already hurt his Party considerably, and the backlash against Democrats may stengthen as the longer-term impacts of his actions “come home to roost”.
The Republican’s must play this lame duck period very carefully, and use what media support that they have to best advantage while giving the Dems enough rope to properly hang themselves.
The remaining dem senators in the new congress up for reelection in 2016 are not overly worried about their chances for returning to DC, and thus they are immune from backlash for failing to convict an impeached dear leader. Instead of titling at windmills, try putting your shoulder to the grindstone. That is what put Joni Ernst in Harkin’s empty seat. That is what won several governor offices and senate seats in blue and purple states. That is what expanded the gop majority in the house.
“Bully for you and your delight, Don Q.”
Thank you for the badge of honor.
Far more preferable than being a sniveling pragmatic coward who wonders why the continuous vetos of congressional bills under the guise of small, incremental steps is proving to be so utterly futile in stopping the tyrannical lawlessness of Obola as well as in stopping the burgeoning lack of faith and lack of trust in the U.S. Constitution and in the U.S. government by so many people.
As Orson said above to Neo:
“But I am a practical sort. I do not believe in tilting at windmills to make a point that…will almost certainly cause a backlash–and most importantly, cannot and will not succeed.” (NeoNeoCon)
(Orson) “Which is why America is lost and declining in freedom at ALL levels. And why all my Tea Party intellectual friends are planning and acting to exit the US for freer pastures.
The American experiment is over — stick a fork — it’s failed and done, well-done.”
Failure of courage to impeach? Then even more people heading to the exits snickering at the futile, useless gestures of putting bills to be vetoed by the Lawless Obola.
“Nor will most Americans see the Democrats’ votes against conviction as reflecting poorly on them. Why would they? They would see them as heroes, holding the line against the vindictive, power-mad, and racist Republicans.”
#1. I’m not convinced by your prognosis. May or may not happen.
#2. So what. I want Liars to lie. And I want to see the people who put their trust in Liars. It’s a lie that Republicans are vindictive, power-mad, and racist.
Make them tell a lie. Find out who believes the lie. It’s a good thing.
I’m with you 100%, Neo. The public wouldn’t buy it. I think it would close whatever cracks are beginning to develop in the Dem bases. And I think there are some potential cracks caused by Obama care, amnesty, and Ferguson. The best way to go forward is with calm and firm resistance and with offering better options. We retook the Senate because we didn’t put forward people who could be cast as radical racist idiots. We don’t have to create millions of new Reps. We have to create more disenchanted stay at homes.
Truth Unites:
You live in a dreamworld, Don.
And people who don’t live in that dreamworld and don’t march to your drummer are not necessarily cowards. Cowardice may or may not be their motivation, depending on the person. Futile and self-destructive grand gestures are not courage, either.
No dreamworld.
Just observing pathetic cowardice in the real world.
Cowardice that results in Neville Chamberlain like results in the real world.
Truth Unites:
Well, of course you don’t think you’re in a dreamworld.
And of course you continue to think those who disagree are cowards.
Boehner and Obama’s Mitch are RINO cowards.
Good luck with that dream team.
16 states have joined with Texas in taking dear leader to federal court over his amnesty EO. As the damage done becomes ever more apparent in local schools and hospitals the backlash will grow and grow.
“As the damage done becomes ever more apparent in local schools and hospitals the backlash will grow and grow.”
May the backlash grow and grow and grow…
(say it with me, you know you want to)…
IMPEACH OBAMA!
“16 states have joined with Texas in taking dear leader to federal court over his amnesty EO.”
Is this nation governed by the Rule of Law?
Is this nation governed by the U.S. Constitution?
Is one man, the President above the Rule of Law, above the Constitution?
If answers are Yes, then do not impeach.
If answers are No, then impeach.
Oops! Typo in the comment above. Should read this way:
“16 states have joined with Texas in taking dear leader to federal court over his amnesty EO.”
Is this nation governed by the Rule of Law?
Is this nation governed by the U.S. Constitution?
Is one man, the President above the Rule of Law, above the Constitution?
If answers are Yes, Yes, and No, then impeach.
If answers are No, No, and Yes, then do not impeach.
Like you all, I believe BHO must have some legislative action taken to stop him from future lawless activity. However, impeachment?? Rep Trey Gowdy put it best – “Have you met Joe Biden?”
Truth Unites:
Neither the rule of law nor the Constitution requires a futile, premature, impeachment vote that will have the opposite effect from the one you intend, Don Q.
I’m curious to know where Truth Unites lives. I live in a large, old American city.
Do the people throwing impeachment rhetoric around understand that this isn’t just about angry op-eds and shrill complaints on MSNBC? Do they not understand that there would be violence in the streets, that a new generation of Bill Ayerses would swing into action?
I’m not terribly fond of the large, old American city I live in. That doesn’t mean I want it to be on fire.
nkbay99:
That is not my reason for delaying any impeachment vote.
I would rather Joe Biden 1000 times more than Obama. Biden is neither as malevolent, nor as destructive, nor as clever, nor as able to get away with overreach and tyranny.
Gene:
In a comment I once saw a while back, people who take a position similar to Truth United’s were referred to as the kamikaze wing of the right. They are about their own heroics, their own integrity, and their own idea of what courage is. They are not interested in the actual real-world consequences of what they propose, and/or they convince themselves that the consequences will be in line with what they desire.
Reproducing what George Pal wrote on an earlier thread:
George Pal Says:
December 3rd, 2014 at 4:26 pm
”Futile gestures are worthless “
As was Custer’s last stand — but it lead to something. As was the gesture, in its immediacy, of the three hundred at Thermopylae — but it led to something. If the case (impeachment) makes no better a showing than a party count, what of it? It may lead to something. I don’t much care if the vote was 1 yea 97 nays and 2 abstentions — what of it? The entire point of VDH’s article gets a slap in the face if the law is not tried. Every prosecutor, nearly always, believes he has made a sturdy case, but none is ever sure of a unanimous guilty conviction. But the law demands the effort. And so too does the law requiring impeachment for malfeasance, misfeasance, misprision. For God’s sake the man took an oath; the man stated a score of times that what he is doing is unconstitutional. What is the standard for bringing a case? He’s Adolf, Joe, and Mao rolled into one? He’s the devil himself? Is a certain conviction the measure? I think VDH would disagree.
———
Moreover, I strongly contend that it is the non-impeachment measures proffered elsewhere on this blog THAT WILL BE FUTILE.
And will simply make things worse.
Gene: “Do they not understand that there would be violence in the streets, that a new generation of Bill Ayerses would swing into action?”
Another demonstration of fear and cowardice.
Fear of a nationwide “Ferguson” occurring if Obama is impeached.
Do the morally right thing. Have courage.
Here I was commenting on the earlier post and all the action is here.
Re the Quixote imagery:
”It is a hard case to make slaves of those whom God and Nature made free,” – Don Quixote (Don Quixote, Cervantes)
Those who lament the futility of impeachment and prefer non-impeachment strategies are attempting to make the hard case. It amounts to doing as Obama does, dismissing, not executing the law. I find it perplexing that those who would cheer VDH’s article on lawlessness are determinedly resolute in ignoring the law and consulting the politics.
I’m in the mood for more Quixotes:
“Against us are… all timid men who prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty… We are likely to preserve the liberty we have obtained only by unremitting labors and perils.” –Thomas Jefferson to Philip Mazzei, 1796.
“A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one!” — Alexander Hamilton
Thank God for the Quixote’s of our past — and they had as their complaint only taxes and quartering. We have the greater grievance; they had the greater men.
Truth Unites, 5:13 pm — “Boehner and Obama’s Mitch are RINO cowards. Good luck with that dream team.”
I think it’s useful to consider that Boehner’s and McConnell’s joint job is not to lead we who mean serious business (“wwmsb”) into battle, but to lead a fractured coalition of “wwmsb”s and RINOs and assorted big business interests into “battle”. I have “battle” in quotes here, because for B & O’s M, it’s a battle in some sense; but it’s not a serious battle, not a battle their heart is really in, in another sense.
For B & O’s M, it’s how the red team can outplay the blue team. For us “wwmsb”s, it’s how we who care and are very alarmed about our country and culture can win the vital battle to reclaim them.
Seriously . . .
We must not think of B & O’s M as one of us “wwmsb”s — ’cause they just ain’t. And recognizing that fact can help us to better appreciate where they’re coming from, and it can help us to avoid the mistake of thinking of them as our logical allies — ’cause they just ain’t.
What do we have to show for impeaching Bill Clinton? The most important thing is to win the White House in 2016. As for high crimes and misdemeanors, prosecute and imprison enough Lois Lerners to so scare the bureaucrats that those who receive Il Duce-style requests in the future won’t be able blow the whistle fast enough.
An important second priority is to Fumigate the bureaucracies. Perhaps eliminate everyone who served one of Obama’s czars. Discontinue the myriad programs that fund leftist NGOs like Acorn, which provide a refuge for community organizers and central planners. If the left wants those things, let them spend money from the likes of George Soros and the Ford Foundation rather than tax dollars.
Sheeeeeeesh! Who on the right side does not want dear leader impeached and convicted? Its a simple matter of what is possible. Its very mas macho to tell others they are cowards when they disagree with you. But that is exactly what the progs do…. vilify and refuse to address reality. Congratulations, you are the mirror image of those you claim to oppose.
Yes, you don’t start battles unless you already know you are going to win. To do otherwise is foolish in all but the most desperate of circumstances, and Republicans and the country are not in those sorts of desperate circumstances. Nothing in the EO is irreversible by the next president- these are, for the moment, temporary amnesties. So impeachment is not the way to go here- winning the presidency in 2016 is better option to work towards.
Now, this doesn’t mean Congress needs to lay down for the next two years. I would certainly not fund ICE beyond January, and I would certainly make Obama veto a bill cutting funding for his amnesty. Done correctly, it might even make Obama shut down the government just to preserve that single item of funding. The media, of course, would try mightily to blame Republicans for shutting the government down, but this will be a much harder thing to sell this time around if it is done right.
It might be a useful datum to recall the effort put into blaming the republicans for the so-called “shut down” last year.
The public either knew better or didn’t care. In any event, had the public bought that piece of nonsense, we wouldn’t have had the election results we just did.
You’ll note the lack of dem accusations of shutting down the government in the last election, not to mention the LSM. Even they must have known–or they’d have acted differently–that the public knew better.
I think they should impeach, even if they lose and the Party suffers and the Leftist Fascists take over America, etc.
Right is right. If America can’t stop Obama in the legal and constitutional way, there really is no America. I would have dies years ago and we only haven’t realized it.
History says that that is a real possibility.
On the other hand, if we are still alive, then we will impeach the Lawless Tyrant who calls himself “President”.
Great debate in this thread; I just composed a longish comment that somehow disappeared while I was proofing, and seeing as how I’m one-finger typing on my iPhone, I’m not going to try again.
Anyway: Good post Neo and lots of good comments by many. My bottom line is no on impeachment, yes on censure, even votes of no confidence, and Hell yes on “fumigating” the administrative agencies (for years they’ve been doing far more harm than this president and they never, ever leave office).
Yes to censure accompanied by a list of egregious acts of lawlessness. No to a futile impeachment. A war is not won by one big winner take all battle. It is won by 1,000 cuts. Those lacking patience should go sit at the children’s table while the grownups plot strategy.
If I remember correctly, a famous early American once said, “I know not what choice others might make, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.”
How many “patriots” would say that today?
Whenever we had a faculty vacancy, a former colleague would joke that we should hire a white male so we could fire him if he did not work out. That’s the bottom line. Obama is untouchable. He hasn’t worked out, but that is not what a vote would turn on.
What I’m reading in the comments:
”Its a simple matter of what is possible.”
All things with recourse to the law, the Constitution, precedents, are possible. Only that which is not attempted is impossible.
”you don’t start battles unless you already know you are going to win.”
Utter nonsense. Who would not mount a defense of something cherished, noble, something many had fought and died to preserve, a country, a Constitution, unlike any other in history, and damn the odds? Was D-Day a sure thing? Had colonials picked a fight with the greatest empire assured of the outcome?
”Those lacking patience should go sit at the children’s table while the grownups plot strategy.”
That has all the petulance of the pot calling out the kettle. The ‘grownups’ patiently plot endless strategies while the subversive, the renegades, the demolishers have been on a half century march through the institutions and have conquered them all. Believe if you must strategies win in the end; I’ll stake everything on a willingness to fight.
All those wanting to charge with bayonets must ask themselves if they also have bullets and how many, if any. Shee-it! I doubt even one of you has the means to resist what you fear for 30 seconds. I suspect you are all paper tigers. No preps, no skills, no plans, and you are doe. Just another msm dead bitter thumper.
GP,
Trying to be gentle…. Find the place where the sun does not shine and pull out all your preps, plans, and skills. Then truly explain your ability to reverse failed impeachment that reserves the gains of the 2014 landslide. In my house, you sit at the children’s table until you reason like an adult. If it comes down to dust me and mine will make a credible last stand. Honestly, what will you and yours do??? I suspect all will whimper and board the cattle cars. Talk is free and internet access is cheap.
Sure, you can get articles of impeachment out of the House.
You’ll never get a conviction in the Senate.
You’ll lose a Texas-sized shit-ton of political capital in one go for nothing.
Remember, the progs have been at this the better part of 100 years. They did not win all of their battles the first, fifth or twentieth time around. Do not expect to roll back that 100 years in one election.
Not. Gonna. Happen.
Also: there’s a sizable portion of the Republican Party that agrees with amnesty. They may not like the way it is being done, but they don’t mind the results, and they may be licking their chops at the prospect of being able to do similar end-runs around a hostile Congress in the future.
Parker,
”All those wanting to charge with bayonets must ask themselves if they also have bullets and how many, if any. Shee-it!”
A metaphorical non sequitur I take it, with a vulgarism as accent. We have the bayonets; they are the law, the Constitution and the procedure adumbrated in it. We have the bullets; they are the counts of lawlessness by this administration — Benghazi, IRS, DOJ (gun running, obstruction of justice, i.e. investigations), Obama – Perjury of Oath of Office. What we have not is men who would serve the law. What we have is men who take measure of political winds. Nixon was impeached for less. Clinton was impeached for less.
“Talk is free…”
Oh don’t I know it. And it is cheap. There’s nothing that so stirs the vitals as a strongly worded peroration or a strongly worded blog post. That’ll show ‘em.
There will not be an impeachment because Obama is giving the GOP leadership exactly what they want:
Amnesty without measurable political consequence.
A larger, more centralized, more costly, and more controlling Federal Government.
The ability to pay lip service to conservative values without actually, you know, needing to enact any conservative legislation.
A smack-down to those heathen conservatives and Tea Party members.
There maybe some minor differences about business taxes and other issues. But basically the GOP leadership and Obama are in alignment. The difference is that Obama can be vocal about his desires whereas the GOP leadership must get their desires through subterfuge.
I have been of the opinion that Impeaching Obama, even if unsuccessful, would be a useful exercise because it would serve to lay out his “high crimes and misdemeanors”–hopefully in a way that a large percentage of our citizenry could and would understand–as well as serving to stake out and delineate the boundaries of Presidential power.
However, mulling over the totality of our current situation–which includes a MSM which would fight like the devil to protect Obama, and to attribute every foul and illegitimate motive they could to those trying to impeach him–and given the clueless, enthralled, and degenerate state of many in today’s electorate, I don’t think such an exercise would be wise.
Better to have the Republicans in Congress concentrate on hindering Obama and blocking him at every turn, defunding or eliminating his programs, presenting him with an endless series of vetoes he has to sign and defend, enmeshing him in endless investigations, inquiries, subpoenas for documents, and required testimony so as to bog him and his administration down, and limit any damage he might attempt during the remainder of his term.
Then, as well, concentrating on expending the number of conservative Republicans in Congress and getting a Republican elected as President in 2016 so that he can undo as much as possible of what Obama has put in place, try to repair the damage, and get us back on the right track.
IRA Darth Aggie: “You’ll lose a Texas-sized shit-ton of political capital in one go for nothing.”
Wrong. Most definitely you will get something good.
But questions were asked earlier and your response seems to be the prevailing answer.
o Is this nation governed by the Rule of Law?
Answer: “You’ll lose a Texas-sized shit-ton of political capital”
o Is this nation governed by the U.S. Constitution?
Answer: “You’ll lose a Texas-sized shit-ton of political capital”
o Is one man, the President above the Rule of Law, above the Constitution?
Answer: “You’ll lose a Texas-sized shit-ton of political capital”
Given this answer of calculated cowardice, Orson’s conclusion above seems to be solid:
“The American experiment is over — stick a fork — it’s failed and done, well-done.”
Why? Look at the choices made:
o Rule of Law OR Political Capital?
Calculating Cowards: We choose Political Capital.
o U.S. Constitution OR Political Capital?
Calculating Cowards: We choose Political Capital.
o Is one man, the President above the Rule of Law, above the Constitution OR do you choose Political Capital?
Calculating Cowards: We choose Political Capital.
Ergo, Orson’s Sad Observation:
“The American experiment is over — stick a fork — it’s failed and done, well-done.“
Orson: “And why all my Tea Party intellectual friends are planning and acting to exit the US for freer pastures.”
And pray tell, where are those freer pastures?
Canada? Don’t make me laugh.
Australia/New Zealand? Oy matey, put another shrimp on the nanny state barbie?
Switzerland? Good luck with that. Do you know how much it costs to become a citizen there?
Hong Kong? That’s a rich one?
Where, oh where, can anyone of modest, middle-class means find a better place to live and work than the U.S.? Answer: It just doesn’t exist. There is no where to run and hide. Either we work to keep what we’ve got here or we sink into what they have in Oz/New Zealand, Canada, and even worse places like Great Britain, Argentina, Brazil, etc. We have a long way to go to reach those levels. Stay here and fight by getting involved. Ranting on a blog is not getting involved. Staying informed, writing/calling your representatives, writing letters to your news paper, going to city council meetings, working in elections, giving money to good candidates, voting, trying to influence your friends and neighbors. Yes, it’s hard and thankless work – discouraging, too. But it’s what has to be done to change things.
Truth Unites:
You write “Most definitely you will get something good.”
I am so glad you have the infallible crystal ball that tells you something good will most definitely come from impeachment. You think we should bow to your superior, hubristic—and illogical, to my way of thinking—projection of your own wishes and desires onto the future.
I don’t see a path to something good coming from it, and certainly not a likelihood, absolutely not a certainty (unless you think feeling good about yourself for a moment or two, no matter what the bad consequences out in the world, would be that “something good”). Neither do most logical people looking at the situation.
You keep charging that those who disagree with you are cowards, rather than merely disagreeing about the goodness or badness of the outcome. There is nothing cowardly about the position that a certain action will have the opposite effect a person desires and therefore that the person does not support acting that way. You may disagree with that person’s assessment, but there is nothing cowardly about it.
“Political capital” is a phrase that I haven’t used. I don’t think of political opinion as being like a savings account that you can use up, although I suppose some people do. I think of political actions as having consequences in the real world, of which the political reaction of the voters is only one (albeit an important one). Impeaching Obama at this point in time (or even at the beginning of the new Congress) would have several very likely consequences. The first is that it would get a lot of publicity and take up an enormous amount of time and energy, which would almost certainly result in sympathy for Obama and anger at Republicans for taking up the nation’s time in an effort the vast majority of people do not support and in fact are against. The second is that there will not be a conviction. So Obama will remain president, but people will be disgusted with Republicans for what will be considered an empty and perhaps even racist vendetta, and an ignoring of the very real problems this country faces, problems Congress should be dealing with. Some of those problems include undoing Obama’s “achievements,” which include Obamacare and the immigration executive action. Even most conservatives agree that they would rather Congress focus on those, and that such a focus would do more to advance the rule of law you are so concerned with than any grandstanding move towards impeachment minus conviction.
The only “good” that would come of impeachment would be the glow of satisfaction the Truth Uniteds of the world would temporarily get from strutting their stuff and (at least, to their way of thinking) proving to the world how very ballsy they are.
George Pal: “Believe if you must strategies win in the end; I’ll stake everything on a willingness to fight.“
Well said, George. Would you happen to be familiar with the biblical account of David and Goliath?
David was a young teenage shepherd boy. (He might not even have been allowed to sit at the grown-ups table either.) Goliath was a huge giant warrior for the Philistines. This Goliath issued challenges to the Israelite army to fight him. As a response, the Bible says this: “On hearing the Philistine’s words, [King] Saul and all the Israelites were dismayed and terrified.” Goliath issued his challenge for 40 days. So for 40 days King Saul and the Israelite army had *calculated* their chances of defeating this giant Goliath, and deemed that it was utterly hopeless.
But lo-and-behold, David, the young shepherd boy, was not a calculating coward like the Israelite army.
George Pal, if you want to know what happens next, and whether David or Goliath won the battle, please read 1 Samuel 17 in the Bible.
The debate about whether to impeach, and the arguments for doing so sound awfully like discussions by the Japanese General Staff about whether to use kamikaze tactics during World War II. Of course by that time, the war was already lost. And that’s what suicide tactics really are. They are employed by the loser after it’s too late, because for those losers the issue has become existential, and they would rather die than lose.
I fear that’s where the conservative movement is. Already defeated, and looking for a way to go out in a blaze of glory. Often defeat becomes inevitable long before it actually happens, and it’s not uncommon for most of the casualties to be inflicted after the outcome is a foregone conclusion.
I don’t dispute that the caliber of conservative and Republican leadership is very low. If it were better, conservatives might
be doing better than they are. I am not ready to despair, and therefore won’t advocate tactics that can only fail. People like to use military analogies in these sorts of arguments, and they sometimes point to heroic last stands that in some way inspired men to greater resistance, such as Thermopolyae or The Alamo. But the difference is that in those cases the defenders could hope to inspire others because the defending side had not committed all, or even most of it’s forces to the last stand. They could hope for help from the outside. In any case, none of these battles began as a suicide attempt.
My fellow conservatives, Colonel Fannin is not coming with reinforcements. We’re it. Despair and suicide can lead only to final and total defeat. Space limitations don’t permit me to summarize it here, but hunt down Douglas Southall Freeman’s essay on Leadership In The Enforced Defensive if you want get an idea of the sort of thinking we need now. Actually, if I were to look for a military analogy to the present low ebb of conservative fortunes, it might be the Confederate defense of Atlanta in 1864, and I find that almost too sad for words.
Bellarion the Fortunate:
I used the kamikaze analogy here.
I don’t think it’s suicide time.
Truth U,
Thank you.
And I am well acquainted with the biblical tale. It demonstrates further that in small tales there exist epic instruction, guidance, and inspiration.
Maybe there’s a middle path. I keep hearing Rush Limbaugh scoffing at the GOP’s fear of the government shutdown threatened by Obama if Congress tries to use the power of the purse on appropriations, even if that power is exercised in a narrow, targeted way (e.g., the immigration Executive Order).
He’s been insisting that the conventional wisdom that the GOP was seriously damaged as a result of the 2013 shutdown is pure baloney, as evidenced by this past election.
I don’t know whether Rush is right, but looking back to the October 2013 shutdown, I recall a lot of outrage at the administration due to the theatrical and draconian measures it took: blocking scenic turnouts near mount Rushmore to prevent travelers from even looking at the carvings, closing all the national parks, even those that are never staffed, barricades at war memorials and all over DC, etc. I think I accurately recall growing public resentment at the Administration despite the MSM’s ceaseless pro-Obama and anti GOP/Cruz propaganda. I remember hating to see the GOP cave in because I was beginning to think that this might backfire on the administration. With a narrow, targeted denial of funding of something that’s unpopular I think the Administration runs the risk of a major backlash if it shuts down the government and tries to blame it on congress.
Carl in Atlanta: “I think I accurately recall growing public resentment at the Administration despite the MSM’s ceaseless pro-Obama and anti GOP/Cruz propaganda.”
Yes Which reinforces my earlier argument that impeachment and removal has the benefit of FORCING Tyrannical liars to lie. Shine the Light on Liberal Liars, RINO Liars, and on the people who believe the lies of liars. This is a good thing.
George Pal: “Truth U, Thank you.
And I am well acquainted with the biblical tale.”
George Pal, you’re most welcome. Are you also familiar with the biblical story of Joshua and Caleb? It’s also a historical recounting of courage and cowardice in the Old Testament.
Joshua and Caleb were picked along with ten other men to explore the Promised Land and give a report back to Moses and the people.
Here’s the abbreviated report and the response:
“We went into the land to which you sent us, and it does flow with milk and honey! Here is its fruit. But the people who live there are powerful, and the cities are fortified and very large.”
Then Caleb silenced the people before Moses and said, “We should go up and take possession of the land, for we can certainly do it.”
But the men who had gone up with him said, “We can’t attack those people; they are stronger than we are.” And they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored. They said, “The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size.”
George Pal, because of that fear they almost stoned the courageous Joshua and Caleb! Instead, they listened to the ten cowards. Does this surprise you?
Guess what happened to the ten cowards.
“So the men Moses had sent to explore the land, who returned and made the whole community grumble against him by spreading a bad report about it– these men who were responsible for spreading the bad report about the land were struck down and died of a plague before the Lord.”
So George Pal, looking at David and Goliath, Joshua and Caleb, we see both courage and calculated cowardice when facing Giants.
Who are the Giants that the cowards are afraid of today?
o The Libs.
o The Liberal Meanstream Media
o The people (some/many of them LIVs) who believe the lies or half-truths of the Libs and the Lib MSM propaganda arm.
o GOP RINOs
Any other Giants that you can think of, George Pal?
George Pal, do you think the Giants listed above which so many calculating pragmatic so-called conservatives are cowardly afraid of, are they that much more formidable and unbeatable than the Giants that David, Joshua, and Caleb faced?
Truth U,
It’s good you have provided a synopsis — my memory and my reading of the bible are both ancient.
As to Giants, I have never been disposed to fear them and would take them for an enemy gladly. I had come to this disposition in the reading Cyrano de Bergerac — also long ago, and recall to this day:
“I-I am going to be a storm-a flame-
I need to fight whole armies alone;
I have ten hearts; I have a hundred arms;
I feel too strong to war with mortals-
BRING ME GIANTS!”
― Cyrano de Bergerac, Edmond Rostand
I would also note that Giants are something of a feature in Jewish Rabbinic literature. They are the offspring of fallen angels and the daughters of Adam. Their names are:
“Emim,” because whoever saw one of them was seized with terror.
“Rephaim,” because their sight made people “soft” (fearful) like wax.
“Gibborim,” because their brains alone measured 18 ells, (a hefty size it is reported)
“Zamzummim,” because they inspired fear and were fierce warriors.
“Anakim,” because they wore huge necklaces in great numbers.
“Avim,” because they destroyed the world and were themselves destroyed.
“Nefilim,” because they caused the world to fall and fell themselves.
And I do believe I’ve exhausted my knowledge of Giants. Oh Wait. There was that Fee-fi-fo-fum giant. As I recall, Jack slew him.
“And I do believe I’ve exhausted my knowledge of Giants.”
George Pal,
I have identified another Giant! Let’s see if you agree. The Giant’s name is Moral Cowardice!
To get a coward to fight, you first have to get him to slay his internal Giant, his or her own moral Cowardice! They don’t want to face it, and that’s why they always point to the external, outside Giant as being too big, too unbeatable. It masks and excuses their own moral cowardice. The Outside Giant provides self-serving rationalization for not stepping up.
I missed that initially. Moreover, a coward is loathe to admit their moral cowardice. They will provide all kinds of sophistry, explanations, excuses, rationalizations on why something can’t be done, and why it’s folly to even attempt it. Much like the biblical fact-narratives of David, Joshua, and Caleb.
Tsk, tsk. Moreover, for those who claim that impeachment is futile while following Boehner and Obama’s Mitch won’t be futile, please see the following:
Sessions: House GOP Is On the Verge Of Breaking 2014 Campaign Promises
Senator Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) suggested that House Republicans are on the verge of breaking their campaign promise to fight President Obama’s administrative amnesty, judging by the legislative text currently being circulated.
Sessions said that the proposed language “fails to meet [the] test” established by Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus, who promised earlier this year that the GOP would do everything possible to thwart Obama’s executive orders.
“The executive amnesty language is substantially weaker than the language the House adopted this summer, and does not reject the central tenets of the President’s plan: work permits, Social Security and Medicare to 5 million illegal immigrants – reducing wages, jobs and benefits for Americans,” Sessions said in the statement expressing his dissatisfaction with the results of a House Republican conference meeting today.
In the meeting, “the lawmakers began coalescing around a two-part plan that would allow a symbolic vote to show their frustration with President Obama’s executive action on immigration, before funding the government ahead of a Dec. 11 deadline,” according to the New York Times.
Sessions wants Congress to attach a rider to the government-funding bill that prohibits Obama from implementing the orders; his office released a list yesterday, compiled with the assistance the Congressional Research Service, of instances in which Congress did just that on a variety of issues last year.
“Congress must respond to the president’s unlawful action by funding the government but not funding illegal amnesty,” Sessions said. “This is a perfectly sound and routine application of Congressional authority. In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reports that last year’s omnibus spending bill included 16 such funding restrictions on fee-based programs.”
To those inclined to worry that using the spending power would backfire on Republicans [Cowards always afraid of something], Sessions suggested that economic populism would lead to a GOP victory.
“Polling shows voters believe that Americans should get preference for available jobs by almost a 10—1 margin,” Sessions said. “Republicans should not be timid or apologetic [i.e., not cowardly], but mount a bold defense of struggling Americans.”
Does Senator Sessions not understand mathematics? I like him and I like the idea of defunding the amnesty plan, but on Dec 11, 2014 is not the time to do it. The numbers are against the GOP. March of 2015 (when the funding for DHS runs out, if the CR is passed as written) is the time to go to the mat. The funding of DHS with specifics as to what money can be spent where can then pass both the House and Senate. The President will then veto it. That will shut down all but the most essential parts (Coast Guard, Border Patrol, etc.) of the DHS. The administrative costs of amnesty will not be funded and most citizens will not be inconvenienced as they were in the total shut down in 2013. That is a fight that can be won without alienating the mass of LIVs necessary to win in 2016.
Impeachment is a way of telling the president ‘NO!’ Congress needs to tell this president not only ‘NO!’ but ‘HELL NO!’
Impeach the bastard and let the chips fall where they may, even if it means ‘ruining’ Barky’s glorious ‘legacy’. If the Senate fails to convict, oh well. But with impeachment, at least Barky will have his third place in presidential history.
But Congress must fight this cockholster president. Or else we are doomed to become a country where ‘strong men’ rule by fiat from the Oval Office. I’m sick of RINOs failing this Republic by not even trying.
We currently have an Attorney General in contempt of Congress. Doing nothing gets us more Holders.