If the GOP wins the House, how long before they start Impeachment against Obama?

[DrDeth]

I say, as soon as next year. There are no longer any real rules as to what constitutes grounds for impeachment, so my bet is that they start the process as soon as they can.

[Lightnin']

I say, as soon as next year. There are no longer any real rules as to what constitutes grounds for impeachment, so my bet is that they start the process as soon as they can.

I'm betting they've already got the papers written up- all they have to do is fill in the blanks.

[Skammer]

You're being paranoid. As unpopular as he is, trying to impeach him would be suicide for the Republicans. What do you think the charges would be?

[Kolga]

You're being paranoid. As unpopular as he is, trying to impeach him would be suicide for the Republicans. What do you think the charges would be?

Fraud (for not being an American citizen) and violation of the Constitution (for the health care bill).

[Rafe Hollister]

I'm with Skammer, but not just because it would be a political nightmare. NFW will there be impeachment proceedings. There have been no grounds for such. I am saying this as a right wing hatemonger, also.

[Jas09]

Perhaps not impeachment, but they sure won't be legislating...

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has a plan for what the Republicans should do if they win control of the House of Representatives: Spend all their time investigating the Obama administration.

"Oh, I think that's all we should do," Bachmann told the Three Fingers of Politics website. "I think that all we should do is issue subpoenas and have one hearing after another, and expose all the nonsense that has gone on."

Cite: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/bachmann-all-we-should-do-is-issue-subpoenas-if-gop-wins-house-audio.php

[DrDeth]

I'm with Skammer, but not just because it would be a political nightmare. NFW will there be impeachment proceedings. There have been no grounds for such. I am saying this as a right wing hatemonger, also.

They have at least as much grounds as they had vs Clinton.

[Euphonious Polemic]

In other words, the Republicans will "investigate" and have one hearing after another until they CAN concoct some kind of fig leaf for an impeachment proceeding.

It would not be a political nightmare if they prepared for it, and spun it endlessly in the media.

[Caffeine.addict]

I would almost hope that they do considering it didn't work out well for them last time.

[Really Not All That Bright]

What are you talking about? They got Clinton out of office after only eight years! It was a tremendous victory for family values!

[gonzomax]

Actually the plan was to keep him so busy defending himself that he would be unable to spend time politicking and governing. They investigated 20 year old business deals and even tossed his wife in the mix. They were not trying to get to any truth. They wanted to hamstring his admin.
There are plenty of repubs who will push to do it again.

[Evil Captor]

You're being paranoid. As unpopular as he is, trying to impeach him would be suicide for the Republicans. What do you think the charges would be?

G.W.B. -- Governing While Black

[Evil Captor]

They have at least as much grounds as they had vs Clinton.

But Clinton got a blowjob! [ scary voice mode] A blooooowjob! [ /scary voice mode]

[Rafe Hollister]

Clinton receiving a bj was not grounds for impeachment. Lying to a federal grand jury investigating sexual harrasment and trying to establish a pattern of behavior? Yeah. That's impeachable and I believe it was certainly justified.

[BrotherCadfael]

It's about as likely as Rep. DiFazio's proposed impeachment of Chief Justice Roberts. In other words, it ain't gonna happen.

[Chefguy]

Impeachment? No. They'll spend the next 2 years trying to overturn the progress that has been made, and the following 4 years trying to gut any oversight that has been established and giving more millions to millionaires. Voters are idiots.

[Skammer]

Chefguy is right. At least with Clinton they had the "lying under oath" to hang their hat on - an actual crime.

- There is no evidence Obama is not eligible to be president
- Even if the health care bill is unconsitutional:
1) It's not a crime to pass an unconstitutional law
2) The President doesn't pass laws anyway, Congress does

No grounds for impeachment. It's a masturbatory fantasy to appeal to extreme right-wing voters.

[River Hippie]

Impeachment? No. They'll spend the next 2 years trying to overturn the progress that has been made, and the following 4 years trying to gut any oversight that has been established and giving more millions to millionaires. Voters are idiots.

Agree.

[DrDeth]

Chefguy is right. At least with Clinton they had the "lying under oath" to hang their hat on - an actual crime.

.

Lying Under Oath is not a crime. It is punished by Contempt (and indeed Clinton was so punished). Perjury is a crime, and of course lying under oath is a critical part of that crime. However, Clinton was never found guilty of Perjury and in fact was never even criminally charged with Perjury.

No doubt, somewhere along the line, Obama made a statement to Congress which could be considered a lie, and thus they could attempt that.

[Jack Batty]

I'm betting while Republicans won't try to bring impeachment proceedings against Obama, without some sort of solid evidence, like video of him blowing Hugo Chavez or something, but I'm willing to bet at least one Republican Congressperson gets CNN level coverage for insisting they do.

[appleciders]

Good lord, the sooner the better. I don't think more than about one-fifth of the country will put up with that kind of nonsense, and I can think of no better way to swing the pendulum of opinion back against the Republicans.

[John D'Adamo]

The fact that we're even talking about the possibility of the GOP starting impeachment proceedings shows how far to the right most of its members have gone. Bush did, well, everything that Bush did and not many thought for a second that the Dems were actually going to go after him because they were interested in bipartisanship. If the Republicans try to impeach Obama it's really going to start a dialogue about impeachment being used for political gain.

As far as Chefguy/Riverhippie, I agree... there will be very little substantive policy work done due to the gridlock that will occur.

[Chronos]

Chefguy is right. At least with Clinton they had the "lying under oath" to hang their hat on - an actual crime.But they didn't wait until they had something to hang their hat on with Clinton, either. Remember, the who reason he was under oath in the first place was that the Republicans were investigating him looking for something to impeach him for.

[hajario]

I work with a guy who's a conspiracy theorist. He was telling me some bullshit about how the GOP would try to get Obama out not by impeachment but by (you are not going to believe this) claiming that he is mentally incapacitated and using the 25th Amendment.

[Chefguy]

The worst part in all of this is going to be listening to that cunt Palin crowing about it all.

[Olfatbut]

But they didn't wait until they had something to hang their hat on with Clinton, either. Remember, the who reason he was under oath in the first place was that the Republicans were investigating him looking for something to impeach him for.

Yes I remember, the land deal thing didn't pan out, so Mr. Starr enlisted Paula Jones just in case there might be some connection (there wasn't).

First thing they will do is dig Rezko up again. Maybe throw in a little Blago to keep it contemporary. http://www.verumserum.com/?p=14192

[Babale]

The fact that we're even talking about the possibility of the GOP starting impeachment proceedings shows how far to the right most of its members have gone.

Bullshit. It shows how far left this board has gone, and nothing else.

[Ludovic]

Bullshit. It shows how far left this board has gone, and nothing else.
Pull the other one. It's got a 2nd amendment solution on it.

[descamisado]

Yes I remember, the land deal thing didn't pan out, so Mr. Starr enlisted Paula Jones just in case there might be some connection (there wasn't).

First thing they will do is dig Rezko up again. Maybe throw in a little Blago to keep it contemporary. http://www.verumserum.com/?p=14192Rezko maybe, but Blago will never get them anywhere. Obama knew enough to avoid him like the plague almost from the moment he met him.

I don't believe they'll actually get to try to impeach him but there will be constant investigations and calls for same.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Bullshit. It shows how far left this board has gone, and nothing else.

I think you missed the Post #6 that shows a REPUBLICAN in the House of Representatives feels that the House should spend all their time investigating the Obama administration.

"Oh, I think that's all we should do," Bachmann told the Three Fingers of Politics website. "I think that all we should do is issue subpoenas and have one hearing after another, and expose all the nonsense that has gone on.

So a Representative, an elected official, a person with actual authority and power is quoted as saying "I think that all we should do is issue subpoenas and have one hearing after another, and expose all the nonsense that has gone on."

And you think that a thread that wonders if perhaps the house might consider impeachment hearings is "bullshit"?

There's not just smoke, there are flames starting to appear.

[E-Sabbath]

I work with a guy who's a conspiracy theorist. He was telling me some bullshit about how the GOP would try to get Obama out not by impeachment but by (you are not going to believe this) claiming that he is mentally incapacitated and using the 25th Amendment.

LaRouche has been mouthing about that, by the way. He probably got it from there.

[Kolga]

Chefguy is right. At least with Clinton they had the "lying under oath" to hang their hat on - an actual crime.

- There is no evidence Obama is not eligible to be president
- Even if the health care bill is unconsitutional:
1) It's not a crime to pass an unconstitutional law
2) The President doesn't pass laws anyway, Congress does

No grounds for impeachment. It's a masturbatory fantasy to appeal to extreme right-wing voters.

There are significant numbers (as in, more than zero) of Congresspeople who are on record as not believing that Obama was born in Hawaii. Those people will absolutely feel that they have evidence enough to begin impeachment hearings on those grounds. Whether or not the "sane" Republicans keep them in check remains to be seen - they may actually encourage the loonies in order to keep the news media slavering over idiocy while they attempt other less sexy machinations.

They may not have grounds for impeachment in a sane world, but that's not going to keep them from trying it.

I'm betting while Republicans won't try to bring impeachment proceedings against Obama, without some sort of solid evidence, like video of him blowing Hugo Chavez or something, but I'm willing to bet at least one Republican Congressperson gets CNN level coverage for insisting they do.

This.

I think you missed the Post #6 that shows a REPUBLICAN in the House of Representatives feels that the House
should spend all their time investigating the Obama administration.

So a Representative, an elected official, a person with actual authority and power is quoted as saying "I think that all we should do is issue subpoenas and have one hearing after another, and expose all the nonsense that has gone on."

And you think that a thread that wonders if perhaps the house might consider impeachment hearings is "bullshit"?

There's not just smoke, there are flames starting to appear.

Yep. Bachmann for sure, probably Angle (if she's elected), and they'll get others roped into it.

Again, it'll involve the absolutely lunatic fringe of the Republicans members of Congress (not that there's a whole lot of different these days), but there WILL be members of the Republican party that WILL attempt impeachment hearings.

[Batfish]

1. Swearing in.

2. Electing new leadership.

3. Singing "God Bless America".

4. Impeachment hearings.

[Robot Arm]

If the GOP wins the House, how long before they start Impeachment against Obama?Can't happen; there just won't be any time for that sort of thing. Haven't you heard that all the new GOP representatives will be working 24/7 to reduce the deficit?

[John D'Adamo]

Bullshit. It shows how far left this board has gone, and nothing else.
Come now, Babale. I would argue this board's leanings have stayed rather consistent in the last ten years (I've lurked since '01) and have certainly not taken a turn to the far left. There have always been a decent sized group of conservative posters, some moderates, and a proportionately larger group of democrats, but not the major far left change you claim.

As far as the original topic, do I think impeachment will gain traction? We must just wait and see. It is quite interesting, watching Bachmann and others in the Tea Party caucus taking a strong interest in investigations. It just remains to be seen if Boehner and the GOP leadership's cooler heads (I know, I know) will prevail.

[Babale]

I think you missed the Post #6 that shows a REPUBLICAN in the House of Representatives feels that the House should spend all their time investigating the Obama administration.

And no Democrat has ever said anything stupid that no one else agreed with, right?
Come now, Babale. I would argue this board's leanings have stayed rather consistent in the last ten years (I've lurked since '01) and have certainly not taken a turn to the far left.
I was just using the same sentence structure as the person I was talking too. I am aware that this board has ever been left-leaning.

[Locrian]

Well, if dummy Bachmann in MN gets her wish-- and would obviously lose-- that might end the repubs and bring back the Whigs.

Bring back the Whigs! Bring back the Whigs! :D

[Evil One]

But Clinton got a blowjob! [ scary voice mode] A blooooowjob! [ /scary voice mode]

And some perjury.

[Evil One]

Clinton lied under oath and got caught. That said, I thought the Republicans overreached by impeaching him. And if they try to impeach Obama without any solid evidence of wrongdoing, they'll overreach again.

Obama has done enough damage to the Democrat's election prospects without any help. If the idea of impeachment is purely for tactical political combat, impeachment would not be smart at all. The best move will be to see if he blindly pursues his agenda despite an obvious electoral rebuke. If he does so, Republicans should just sit back and play out the rope for 2012 while they propose alternative solutions and dare him to oppose them. An impeachment drive would drive moderates back into the Democrat camp.

[Euphonious Polemic]

And no Democrat has ever said anything stupid that no one else agreed with, right?



I"m sure there have been. And when a thread appears that discusses Democrats wanting to do stupid things, you can bring it up there.

Here though, implying that Democrats say stupid things too, so it's all OK - it does not really add to the discussion.

[gonzomax]

Chefguy is right. At least with Clinton they had the "lying under oath" to hang their hat on - an actual crime.

- There is no evidence Obama is not eligible to be president
- Even if the health care bill is unconsitutional:
1) It's not a crime to pass an unconstitutional law
2) The President doesn't pass laws anyway, Congress does

No grounds for impeachment. It's a masturbatory fantasy to appeal to extreme right-wing voters.

The investigation of Clinton's personal life resulted in a lying under oath charge. It was the endless investigations that precipitated the charge. It was not the point of investigations but a fortuitous break. Otherwise they wasted mega millions of tax payer funds in a witch hunt. Still the money was wasted.
The investigations were wrong in the first place. I would not be surprised to see the Repubs do it again. The Dems don't get it. The Repubs will do anything to get power. They are not hamstrung by rules or manners. The Dems want to discuss and agree like gentlemen. The Repubs will filibuster Christmas if they see political profit in it.

[DrDeth]

The Dems don't get it. The Repubs will do anything to get power. They are not hamstrung by rules or manners. The Dems want to discuss and agree like gentlemen. .

I wouldn't say "gentlemen", let us say "politicians who know that compromise gets things done".

[ExTank]

There's not just smoke, there are flames starting to appear.

No, that's the Village Idiot yelling "Fire!"

Andf it's an indication of how..words fail me...the Left is when they quote Michelle Bachman as a normative example of conservatives.

Edit: EP, I'm not calling you the Village Idiot, I'm referring to Bachman. Apologies for the obscure wording.

[Really Not All That Bright]

No, that's the Village Idiot yelling "Fire!"

Andf it's an indication of how..words fail me...the Left is when they quote Michelle Bachman as a normative example of conservatives.
Yes, but a third of (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/the_latest_in_conservative_direct_mail_impeach_obama.php) the village (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/10/poll-35-of-republicans-wa_n_387093.html) is joining her (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0210/Kos_poll_A_plurality_of_Republicans_favor_impeachment.html) in yelling "fire!"

It should be noted that the first poll indicates that 10% of Democrats want to impeach Obama, but still.

[Knorf]

I don't think the GOP will try to impeach Obama for real unless he's reelected.

[Chronos]

Quoth Evil One:Obama has done enough damage to the Democrat's election prospects without any help.Whatever gave you that bizarre idea? His approval ratings are still higher than any of the Republican leadership, and his coattails undoubtedly contributed significantly to the Democrats' major gains in 2008. Even now, when many democrats are getting voted out of office, it's disproportionately the ones who weren't going along with his agenda, which corresponds to what the significant majority of the population wants.

[Dr. Rieux]

They have at least as much grounds as they had vs Clinton.

Yes. 0=0.

[Euphonious Polemic]

No, that's the Village Idiot yelling "Fire!"

Andf it's an indication of how..words fail me...the Left is when they quote Michelle Bachman as a normative example of conservatives.

Edit: EP, I'm not calling you the Village Idiot, I'm referring to Bachman. Apologies for the obscure wording.

No worries, I got the reference to Bachman.

Bachman is not the village idiot. She is an elected representative of the House. She may not be a normative example, but she is not a crazy person on the street corner, or a whacko ranting on the internet (referring to random nutter, not you!).

When discussing what the Republican members of the House might do, I don't think it's totally out of bounds to quote what a Republican member of the House has said she would like to do.

[Chefguy]

Obama has done enough damage to the Democrat's election prospects without any help.

Your premise is incorrect. The healthcare bill, cap & trade, and other measures were enacted by congressional Democrats, who had full knowledge of what would happen at the midterm elections as a result. They did it because they felt it was the right thing to do. While these bills were something that Obama pushed for, the Dems in both houses were under no obligation to enact legislation on his behalf.

If there is any fault to lay on Obama, it's his failure to adequately inform the public on a regular basis as to what progress his administration was making in regards to stabilizing the economy, etc. (fireside chats, if you will). This is why most people feel that nothing has been done, when in fact that is not the case. Democrats who are now trying to point to those successes are having a difficult time making their cases after two years of Fox & Friends telling people how frightened they ought to be, with little to no rebuttal from the highest echelon of the left.

[Gangster Octopus]

Republicans really hate Democracy, don't they.

[Nametag]

Uh, I don't think it's correct to say that Clinton lied under oath -- what he was ultimately censured for was "misleading testimony." As I recall, what he did was to pin down the prosecutor/questioner/whoever-the-hell-it-was to a specific, very technical, and not-very-well constructed definition of "sexual relations" which he could truthfully deny having engaged in. The fact that a blow job does not meet the definition used during that session (arguably) protected Clinton from a criminal charge of perjury, but not from the more administrative charge of misleading the court.

[DrDeth]

Uh, I don't think it's correct to say that Clinton lied under oath -- what he was ultimately censured for was "misleading testimony." As I recall, what he did was to pin down the prosecutor/questioner/whoever-the-hell-it-was to a specific, very technical, and not-very-well constructed definition of "sexual relations" which he could truthfully deny having engaged in. The fact that a blow job does not meet the definition used during that session (arguably) protected Clinton from a criminal charge of perjury, but not from the more administrative charge of misleading the court.

Right, and the Judge very properly held him in contempt for his act of prevarication. What Clinton did was wrong, and he was punished in a suitable manner. But it was not the crime of Perjury.

It also should not have been Impeachable.

Chefguy- I more or less agree. What Obama has done "wrong" so far is spend all his political capital on Healthcare (when the budget was a bigger concern), not telling us what he has done for us, and also not living up to the nearly impossible expectations. That last is pretty much standard for every President in his 1st Mid-terms. Obama so far has done a fairly good job, but no doubt many of us hoped for better.

[ExTank]

When discussing what the Republican members of the House might do, I don't think it's totally out of bounds to quote what a Republican member of the House has said she would like to do.

Fair 'nuf. I've used the exact same reasoning with Pres. O wrt his gun control agenda.

But I don't care what you say; Bachman is a friggin' loon.

[Euphonious Polemic]

But I don't care what you say; Bachman is a friggin' loon.

Absolutely. She is also a member of a body with the power to investigate, censure and impeach. This may or may not give you pause. I see that there are others with similar levels of loonyness (IMO) who are attempting to join her there this November.

[ExTank]

Absolutely. She is also a member of a body with the power to investigate, censure and impeach. This may or may not give you pause. I see that there are others with similar levels of loonyness (IMO) who are attempting to join her there this November.

You're taking this waayyy to seriously.

Take a walk and get some fresh air. Drink a beer or six.

Relax into it. It'll all work out one way or another no matter what you or I do.

[DrDeth]

You're taking this waayyy to seriously.

Relax into it. It'll all work out one way or another no matter what you or I do.

Well, let's look at it this way- if it was the GOP leadership calling for Impeachment, we'd have to be very concerned. If it was some loon tea-party birther blogger, they can be ignored or laughed at.

But since she's a sworn Member of Congress, I suggest a middle ground. Some concern.

And, we can do something- get out and vote. Make sure others do.

[Merijeek]

Well, let's look at it this way- if it was the GOP leadership calling for Impeachment, we'd have to be very concerned. If it was some loon tea-party birther blogger, they can be ignored or laughed at.


That, or it's a whole other can of worms they don't want to remind everyone about until it's too late for voters to change their minds.

-Joe

[Bricker]

I work with a guy who's a conspiracy theorist. He was telling me some bullshit about how the GOP would try to get Obama out not by impeachment but by (you are not going to believe this) claiming that he is mentally incapacitated and using the 25th Amendment.

That would put Biden leading the charge. I don't see it.

[Bricker]

Uh, I don't think it's correct to say that Clinton lied under oath -- what he was ultimately censured for was "misleading testimony." As I recall, what he did was to pin down the prosecutor/questioner/whoever-the-hell-it-was to a specific, very technical, and not-very-well constructed definition of "sexual relations" which he could truthfully deny having engaged in. The fact that a blow job does not meet the definition used during that session (arguably) protected Clinton from a criminal charge of perjury, but not from the more administrative charge of misleading the court.

Not true.

And cited many many times here, to boot. One more:

Lewinsky testified that she performed oral sex on the President on nine occasions. On all nine of those occasions, the President fondled and kissed her bare breasts. He touched her genitals, both through her underwear and directly, bringing her to orgasm on two occasions. On one occasion, the President inserted a cigar into her vagina.

The definition of "sexual relations" used for the President's civil deposition was: For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in “sexual relations” when the person knowingly engages in or causes . . . contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. . . . “Contact” means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing.

[DrDeth]

Not true.

And cited many many times here, to boot. One more:

:

Whether or not there was a "lie" Clinton was never convicted of or even charged criminally for Perjury, thus he would be innocent.

Are you saying that he was guilty of a crime and the Judge was wrong to treat it as a Contempt issue?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Not true.

And cited many many times here, to boot. One more:

Lewinsky testified that she performed oral sex on the President on nine occasions. On all nine of those occasions, the President fondled and kissed her bare breasts. He touched her genitals, both through her underwear and directly, bringing her to orgasm on two occasions. On one occasion, the President inserted a cigar into her vagina.

The definition of "sexual relations" used for the President's civil deposition was:
This is not proof that the President lied. it's just contradictory testimony (testimony that was given under duress, by the way). Prove that Clinton actually did any of those things.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

That would put Biden leading the charge. I don't see it.
They would see Biden as an easy opponent in 2012. The real problem with the 25th Amendment scheme (apart from the total lack of any reason to declare the President mentally incompetent) is that the Vice President has to be the one to call for it, and he has to be backed by a majority of the Executive branch and/or Congress.

Even pointing out that much is giving the idea more attention than it deserves, though.

[Euphonious Polemic]

On the topic of the Republican plans for the next two years....

Here's a link to a thread about Senator Mitch McConnel (R-Kentucky)
(http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=583558) who has said:

Originally Posted by Mitch McConnell
The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

He does not mention impeachment specifically, but when a Republican SENATOR lists that as the number one important thing that needs to be done - I would think that he would consider any legal way of doing it. After all, it is the single most important thing he wants to achieve.

Once again - these are not random nutbars on the internet proposing that the number one problem facing the nation is the President. These are members of the House and Senate.

[Jack Batty]

There was one randon nutbar on Fox n Friends this morning named Chuck Norris who said, "If the Republican's don't take over congress on Tuesday, I'm afraid America won't even exist in two years," or words to that effect.

I had no idea Chuck was such a pants-pissing-pussy.

[Blank Slate]

Dare I ask how the health care bill might be unconstitutional?

Impeachment didn't work last time. Bachmann and Palin and their ilk will urge their followers to find a permanent solution. Yes, they're that fucking crazy.

[Merijeek]

There was one randon nutbar on Fox n Friends this morning named Chuck Norris who said, "If the Republican's don't take over congress on Tuesday, I'm afraid America won't even exist in two years," or words to that effect.

I had no idea Chuck was such a pants-pissing-pussy.

It seems that pretty much all Rightists, which is funny considering they're supposed to be the tough guys.

I guess this just makes him the ultimate Republican.

-Joe

[Cisco]

Bachmann and Palin and their ilk will urge their followers to find a permanent solution.
No, they'll just really really strongly suggest it, and then be absolutely aghast at the notion that their actions contributed if it ever happens. The President was a great man who they didn't always agree with but they always supported, dontchaknow.

[Euphonious Polemic]

There was one randon nutbar on Fox n Friends this morning named Chuck Norris who said, "If the Republican's don't take over congress on Tuesday, I'm afraid America won't even exist in two years," or words to that effect.

I had no idea Chuck was such a pants-pissing-pussy.

I think Norris would be a perfect candidate for the

Keep Fear Alive Rally (http://www.keepfearalive.com/)

[hajario]

There was one randon nutbar on Fox n Friends this morning named Chuck Norris who said, "If the Republican's don't take over congress on Tuesday, I'm afraid America won't even exist in two years," or words to that effect.

It puts me in mind of all of those people (some of whom are still posting on this board) who said that they would emigrate to Canada if Bush was elected in 2004.

[Euphonious Polemic]

It puts me in mind of all of those people (some of whom are still posting on this board) who said that they would emigrate to Canada if Bush was elected in 2004.

Yes! Those two things are EXACTLY the same, which leads logically to the COMPLETE NEGATION of the original concept! Well done!
:rolleyes:


Were "those people" on Fox'n'Friends or equivalent communistic show?

[John D'Adamo]

It puts me in mind of all of those people (some of whom are still posting on this board) who said that they would emigrate to Canada if Bush was elected in 2004.

This may get me reamed, but I'm going with Euphonious Polemic- how are serious statements about America not existing in two years the equivalent of half-joking statements about emigration to Canada?

[hajario]

This may get me reamed, but I'm going with Euphonious Polemic- how are serious statements about America not existing in two years the equivalent of half-joking statements about emigration to Canada?

Because they weren't half joking, they were totally serious. Both are over the top, histrionic overreactions although clearly the one about America not existing in two years is worse.

[John D'Adamo]

Because they weren't half joking, they were totally serious. Both are over the top, histrionic overreactions although clearly the one about America not existing in two years is worse.
I still don't see the equivalency. I will concede that both are overreactions, but saying that one is going to move to another place as a result of Bush vs. an entire country ceasing to exist? I really think the concept of Republican commentators calamitously predicting the end of America if a few obstructionist Republicans don't make it to Capitol Hill is completely moronic.

[Jack Batty]

It puts me in mind of all of those people (some of whom are still posting on this board) who said that they would emigrate to Canada if Bush was elected in 2004.

Well, one difference there is that emigrating to Canada is a completely do-able proposition. Whether someone claimed he'd do it and then didn't really doesn't enter into the picture.

Is there one non-retarded person in the country who actually thinks America will cease to be if the Republicans don't win?


ETA: which you've already sort of adressed, so never mind.

[John D'Adamo]

I just think it's interesting how we're hearing Republicans saying revolution is on the table, that America will cease to exist, etc. if Democrats stay in power. Quite honestly, what proof is there that the Democrats are destroying America/being socialist communist evil villains as it is right now? Do they have a secret plan to do so after the election? They're not deficit spending us into two wars, one completely baseless, starting up warrantless wiretapping programs, causing financial ruin by giving substantial amounts of benefits and handouts to the richest Americans, are they? Gee, I wonder who was in power when all that happened.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Because they weren't half joking, they were totally serious.

Cite?

[Jack Batty]

Actually, I think it's all a set up. There's pretty much no way Republicans aren't going to make great gains during the mid-terms, probably taking the house. At that point they can all go, "Phew, crisis averted. Republicans are in. America's safe."

[Evil Captor]

And some perjury.

No, it was a blowjob that brought on the impeachment. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. Drop the figleaf, sir, it's not concealing anything.

[Drunky Smurf]

This may get me reamed, but I'm going with Euphonious Polemic- how are serious statements about America not existing in two years the equivalent of half-joking statements about emigration to Canada?

Chuck was obviously half-joking.

[Jack Batty]

Chuck does not have a sense of humor that he is aware of.

[hajario]

Cite?

Cite for what? That a bunch of hysterical dipshits swore that they would move to Canada or Europe if Bush won in '04? Are you saying that that never happened?

It's getting more and more frustrating to be a pragmatic moderate. The utter stupidity of both sides is soul crushing. Look at the subject of this thread? Impeachment? Really? Sure a few extreme morons might make some noise but it will never happen.

If I had to choose, I would have to say that the GOP, in general, is worse of late but that we're just a pendulum swing away from that changing.

[Blank Slate]

If Palin is elected president, I'm moving to Belize. Promise.

[hajario]

If Palin is elected president, I'm moving to Belize. Promise.

Win win! ;)

[foolsguinea]

If Palin is elected President, I may stay here. Someone has to form the resistance.

http://cnnbc.moveon.org/?rc=tw

[Ludovic]

Chuck does not have a sense of humor that he is aware of.Chuck does not have a sense of humor. Instead, a sense of humor has Chuck.

[Chronos]

Y'know, there are a few people who said they'd move to Canada id W won in 2004, and then actually did. Maybe not very many, but there were some. Are there going to be a few Americas that cease to exist in a few years?

[descamisado]

If Palin is elected President, I may stay here. Someone has to form the resistance.

http://cnnbc.moveon.org/?rc=twI clicked on it and used the name "Sista Soulja."

The placements in the video were interesting.

Otherwise, that shit be funny.

[Merijeek]

I just think it's interesting how we're hearing Republicans saying revolution is on the table, that America will cease to exist, etc. if Democrats stay in power. Quite honestly, what proof is there that the Democrats are destroying America/being socialist communist evil villains as it is right now? Do they have a secret plan to do so after the election? They're not deficit spending us into two wars, one completely baseless, starting up warrantless wiretapping programs, causing financial ruin by giving substantial amounts of benefits and handouts to the richest Americans, are they? Gee, I wonder who was in power when all that happened.

Exactly. Already practically the People's Republic of Canada.

-Joe

[New Deal Democrat]

The problem with this nonsense is that we are facing really serious economic problems. When Bill Clinton was impeached for a consensual affair with a woman past the age of consent - no excuse me, when he was impeached for telling a lie in response to a question Ken Starr asked, hoping Clinton would lie - the economy was doing well. The United States could afford the silly distraction of Republicans giggling and snickering like twelve year old boys with a copy of Playboy. Now we can't.

The reason I think there might not be impeachment hearings is that Clinton's approval rating went up during his impeachment.

[Enuma Elish]

Dare I ask how the health care bill might be unconstitutional?

Impeachment didn't work last time. Bachmann and Palin and their ilk will urge their followers to find a permanent solution. Yes, they're that fucking crazy.

I think forcing citizens to participate in health-care, even if they don't want to, is unconstitutional. I don't think this provision would pass Supreme Court muster.

As for Obama - talk of impeaching him is just silly. Just vote him out in 2 years if you disagree with him.

As for Clinton - the impeachment proceedings against him were a useless adolescent waste of time. I wish he had looked into the camera and stated clearly and forcefully,"My personal life is none of your business!" and stuck to that.

[Measure for Measure]

Not true.

And cited many many times here, to boot. One more:

Lewinsky testified that she performed oral sex on the President on nine occasions. On all nine of those occasions, the President fondled and kissed her bare breasts. He touched her genitals, both through her underwear and directly, bringing her to orgasm on two occasions. On one occasion, the President inserted a cigar into her vagina.

The definition of "sexual relations" used for the President's civil deposition was:
For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in “sexual relations” when the person knowingly engages in or causes . . . contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. . . . “Contact” means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing. Yeah, I thought we had been through this. Clinton didn't engage in sex as defined by the bizarro definition put forth by the conservative plaintiffs: a reasonable person could say that his contact was conducted without an intent to arouse or gratify Lewinsky: Clinton did it for himself. Such an interpretation of the language is, "Reasonable at most and arguable at least": sufficient for a defense against perjury. Remember the definition was put forth by Jones' lawyers: if they wanted to say "deponent and any second party" they could have.

[Measure for Measure]

Incidentally, my fellow posters are missing the point. Inflation has been dropping for the past year: absent additional stimulus it will continue to fall. Monetary policy will become less and less effective. If we are going to jump start the economy, we need fiscal stimulus in a big way. Getting that from a Republican Congress is highly unlikely. So the US is stuck with a lost decade.

For their intransigence, the Republicans will be rewarded in 2012, provided growth in that year remains depressed. This recession is different than previous post-war experiences: congressional passivity is enough to wreck both economy and administration.

[Captain Midnight]

Reagan should have been impeached for authorizing the sell of weapons to Iran (Iran for fuck sake), then sending the profits illegally to fund the Contras in Nicaragua (which was also illegal under Congressional mandate).

I think Congress didn't do it because Reagan was so popular and there wasn't much of a desire to plunge the country back into a Watergate type scenerio.

Clinton gets the dubious honor of being the second President to be impeached by Congress (after Andrew Johnson). Schoolkids in American history and Civics will have this question on a test "Which two Presdidents have been impeached?"

I always thought impeach was a silly sounding word. Impeach. Maybe because the word "peach" is inside of it. I mean, it doesn't sound any more intellegent than IMAPPLEMENT, or IMGRAPEMENT.

[hajario]

For their intransigence, the Republicans will be rewarded in 2012, provided growth in that year remains depressed. This recession is different than previous post-war experiences: congressional passivity is enough to wreck both economy and administration.

I've been mulling the same thing over in my head for the last few weeks but with a different spin. The economy is cyclical and I think that we're on an upswing right now. I actually think that the economy will be doing much better in the next two years just because of a natural cycle. I think that unemployment will drop and the stock market will be up. The GOP will make the (incorrect) claim that it was because they took over the House and it will be to Obama's detriment.

[Chronos]

Yeah, I thought we had been through this. Clinton didn't engage in sex as defined by the bizarro definition put forth by the conservative plaintiffs: a reasonable person could say that his contact was conducted without an intent to arouse or gratify Lewinsky: Clinton did it for himself.But the definition posited says "with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person". Clinton was a person, and what he did with Lewinsky, he did to gratify his sexual desire.

It's still lousy grounds for impeachment, and wouldn't have come up if the Republicans hadn't been witch-hunting. But Clinton really should have known better than to make that statement.

[hajario]

It's still lousy grounds for impeachment, and wouldn't have come up if the Republicans hadn't been witch-hunting. But Clinton really should have known better than to make that statement.

Agreed. He did all kinds of twisted legalistic bullshit from the very beginning of his time with her in anticipation of being asked about it some day. I recall that he always left the door slightly ajar because then he technically, from a legal point of view, wasn't "alone" with her.

The thing that I found the scummiest about the whole thing was they were ready to paint Lewinsky as this insane delusional stalker. It would have worked too had she not saved the blue dress.

[appleciders]

The more I think about it, the less likely I think impeachment is. The Republicans as a whole would be fools to start impeachment hearings with such a small majority in the Senate; even if they win all the close races, I can't figure out how they'd have more than about 52 seats. That would mean they'd need what, fifteen Democratic senators to vote to impeach a sitting Democratic U.S. President on what we're assuming are trumped up charges? That's pretty preposterous in the current climate. So for impeachment proceedings to begin in the House, I'd have to assume that the Republicans in the House would be acting against any greater plan by the RNC to impeach. Impeachment proceedings by the Republicans right now would need to show one hell of a "high crime or misdemeanor" for them to get that much Democratic support.

[gonzomax]

Reagan should have been impeached for authorizing the sell of weapons to Iran (Iran for fuck sake), then sending the profits illegally to fund the Contras in Nicaragua (which was also illegal under Congressional mandate).

I think Congress didn't do it because Reagan was so popular and there wasn't much of a desire to plunge the country back into a Watergate type scenerio.

Clinton gets the dubious honor of being the second President to be impeached by Congress (after Andrew Johnson). Schoolkids in American history and Civics will have this question on a test "Which two Presdidents have been impeached?"

I always thought impeach was a silly sounding word. Impeach. Maybe because the word "peach" is inside of it. I mean, it doesn't sound any more intellegent than IMAPPLEMENT, or IMGRAPEMENT.

Reagan and his entire staff "didn't remember" when the house committee grilled them. They killed the investigation with lies.
Clinton was investigated for Whitewater, a 25 year old money wasting dead end and several other money and time wasting dead ends. They stayed in session when they should have disbanded. Tax money did not mean a thing to them. They had no mandate to go after Clinton's sex life. It fell into their laps and they ran with it. It was a low point in American judicial history.
Yep, Clinton lied. But the committee should have been disbanded for abusing their "mandate" before it ever got there.

[gonzomax]

He was investigated for Travel gate, Vince Fosters suicide, White water, and who knows how many other dead ends Kenn Starr followed , wasting tax money by the truckload.
The Dems should have responded in kind to Bush and the bankers. Some of us were hoping for it.

[hajario]

The Dems should have responded in kind to Bush and the bankers. Some of us were hoping for it.

I'm really glad that they didn't. Much as I disliked Bush II, the bullshit has to stop somewhere.

[Nametag]

Uh, I don't think it's correct to say that Clinton lied under oath -- what he was ultimately censured for was "misleading testimony." As I recall, what he did was to pin down the prosecutor/questioner/whoever-the-hell-it-was to a specific, very technical, and not-very-well constructed definition of "sexual relations" which he could truthfully deny having engaged in. The fact that a blow job does not meet the definition used during that session (arguably) protected Clinton from a criminal charge of perjury, but not from the more administrative charge of misleading the court.

Not true.

And cited many many times here, to boot. One more:

Lewinsky testified that she performed oral sex on the President on nine occasions. On all nine of those occasions, the President fondled and kissed her bare breasts. He touched her genitals, both through her underwear and directly, bringing her to orgasm on two occasions. On one occasion, the President inserted a cigar into her vagina.

The definition of "sexual relations" used for the President's civil deposition was:

For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in “sexual relations” when the person knowingly engages in or causes . . . contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. . . . “Contact” means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing.

In his testimony, Clinton denied that any such contact had taken place, and otherwise refused to discuss details. I admit, this makes "truthfully" the wrong word here; more like "without fear of proof arising to the contrary." As far as the court, and anyone not in the room, knows, Lewinsky serviced Clinton without reciprocation -- a scenario that, while perhaps less likely than Ms. Lewinksy's, is hardly unprecedented.

[gonzomax]

Ken Starr was not given a mandate to investigate Clinton's sex life. He fell into it by a message from Tripp. He should have thrown it in the garbage. Vitter got busted for going to whore houses and wearing diapers. He is still in office. If we tossed out every politician who did some sexual indiscretion
the seats would be practically empty.
Clinton lied, but he should never have been forced to endure the questioning. It had nothing to do with his job. It was a witch hunt of the Republican party.
They should have been ashamed.

[Measure for Measure]

I've been mulling the same thing over in my head for the last few weeks but with a different spin. The economy is cyclical and I think that we're on an upswing right now. I actually think that the economy will be doing much better in the next two years just because of a natural cycle. I think that unemployment will drop and the stock market will be up. With respect, I imagine that you have not studied macroeconomics. Most recoveries are built upon cuts in interest rates by the Federal Reserve, growth in the housing sector and growth in personal consumption. But the conventional monetary policy is maxed out: you can't cut interest rates below zero (setting aside oddities). And the strength of unconventional policy is ...untested. Understand me: the Fed has not cut rates to 1/4 of one percent since WWII: they have never run out of conventional ammunition before.

I fear a lost decade, like Japan experienced. And if the US is hit by a substantial adverse economic shock, I can't rule out a depression, though admittedly 15% unemployment might shock even Republicans to embrace conventional economic theory, as practiced by paid professional business analysts and forecasters, among others. My views on political economy have changed a lot since 2006.

[gonzomax]

I don't see any good times coming. if the Repubs get the house, they will toss a monkey wrench into all the potential progress. They will try to get even more money into the wealthy class. They will exacerbate the financial problems with tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy. It is a dangerous policy they have followed and I wish they could see it.

[hajario]

With respect, I imagine that you have not studied macroeconomics.

You are very perceptive. :)

Most recoveries are built upon cuts in interest rates by the Federal Reserve, growth in the housing sector and growth in personal consumption. But the conventional monetary policy is maxed out: you can't cut interest rates below zero (setting aside oddities). And the strength of unconventional policy is ...untested. Understand me: the Fed has not cut rates to 1/4 of one percent since WWII: they have never run out of conventional ammunition before.

I fear a lost decade, like Japan experienced. And if the US is hit by a substantial adverse economic shock, I can't rule out a depression, though admittedly 15% unemployment might shock even Republicans to embrace conventional economic theory, as practiced by paid professional business analysts and forecasters, among others. My views on political economy have changed a lot since 2006.

I appreciate your comments.

[Measure for Measure]

hajario: Let me summarize: if we weren't in a liquidity trap (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/liquiditytrap.asp), this wouldn't matter so much and your take might be roughly accurate. This is actually the 2nd time the US found itself in a liquidity trap: but case #1 was during the Great Depression.


The irony is that big business supports these clowns. In early 2009 Martin Feldstein, head economist under Ronald Reagan, advocated placing additional military spending into the stimulus package. No problem I say. Spending money on anything stimulates the economy. Want to build an electronic wall on the Canadian border and stock the Rio Grande with laser-guided sharks? Great! The only tricky part is that you want to give money to those who will actually spend a big chunk of the funds. You can ground economically sound policies on conservative priorities and even conservative pork. You can build a coalition with know-nothings and throw them some raw meat every now and then. Just don't put them in charge. It would be acceptable to me if reality-based conservatives dominated the GOP as they used to, instead of being thoroughly marginalized and dismissed as RINOs.

[elucidator]

If you work at it hard enough, you can convince yourself that is good for you is, by lucky coinicidence or divine intervention, good for the country. That attitude has been a ruling class talking point for damn near forever. Al Capp's plutocrat character General Bullmoose: "Whats good for General Bullmose is good for America" is but a parody of Calvin Coolidge's "The business of America is business." It is the source of the faith in trickle down economics, and the equally unfounded faith that tax cuts that favor the rich are good for employment.

They believe it because they want to, when half an hours research, if it did not convince them otherwise, would at least give them pause.

[carnivorousplant]

That's impeachable and I believe it was certainly justified.
And it was quite successful, wasn't it? :)

[Clothahump]

1. He hasn't done anything impeachable. Yet.

2. That would put Biden in the White House. That's going to suck just as bad, but in a different manner.

[Measure for Measure]

If you work at it hard enough, you can convince yourself that is good for you is, by lucky coincidence or divine intervention, good for the country. Sure. But a marginal tax rate of 36% rather than 39.6% will only get you so far. Stock markets perform better under Democratic than Republican administrations.

Rising unemployment and lost decades tend to crimp profits and executive pay packages. Or so I imagine. I miss the Robber Barons of the nineteenth century: their attitude was, "The public be damned". Today's milqtoast suits complain that a rather mildmannered Obama is being mean to them: they feel like pinatas! Frankly, they need to Man Up (http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/10/ideology-vs-self-interest).

[Knorf]

1. He hasn't done anything impeachable. Yet.

2. That would put Biden in the White House. That's going to suck just as bad, but in a different manner.

I suspect the GOP would feel more confident in their ability to beat Biden than Obama.

[Nametag]

If you work at it hard enough, you can convince yourself that is good for you is, by lucky coinicidence or divine intervention, good for the country. That attitude has been a ruling class talking point for damn near forever. Al Capp's plutocrat character General Bullmoose: "Whats good for General Bullmose is good for America" is but a parody of Calvin Coolidge's "The business of America is business."

Actually, it's a parody of a far more similar statement: "What's good for General Motors is what's good for America." This may or may not have been as arrogant as it sounds, but it is what Capp was riffing off of.

[SantaMan]

one of the more interesting misquotes that I know:
What he said (which is close, but not as problematic, gutwise)
"Wilson's actual reply, in full:

"I cannot conceive of one, because for years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors and vice versa. The difference did not exist. Our company is too big. It goes with the welfare of the country."

linky (http://www.freep.com/article/20080914/BUSINESS01/809140308/GM-s--Engine-Charlie--Wilson-learned-to-live-with-a-misquote)

[marshmallow]

1. He hasn't done anything impeachable.

He has, but you'd have to attack him from the left. For example, he's bombed countries we're not even at war with. Or the torture. Or clandestine operations that probably break every international law there is. It would be high comedy to see the Repubs go down that road, but alas.


If there is any fault to lay on Obama, it's his failure to adequately inform the public on a regular basis as to what progress his administration was making in regards to stabilizing the economy, etc.

It's interesting to watch Dems switch tropes with Repubs. Refer to Repubs several years ago mourning over how Bush failed to convince the public of all those super secret terror plots he was preventing all the time. If only we knew how awesome he was!

[Really Not All That Bright]

one of the more interesting misquotes that I know:
What he said (which is close, but not as problematic, gutwise)
"Wilson's actual reply, in full:

"I cannot conceive of one, because for years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors and vice versa. The difference did not exist. Our company is too big. It goes with the welfare of the country."

linky (http://www.freep.com/article/20080914/BUSINESS01/809140308/GM-s--Engine-Charlie--Wilson-learned-to-live-with-a-misquote)
...and everyone has a share!

[gonzomax]

Boehner already announced that he will have a series of investigations as soon as he gets power. The Dems keep doing government business instead of political business. They will never learn to play dirty enough. Repubs love that stuff.

[Digital Stimulus]

I don't think the GOP will try to impeach Obama for real unless he's reelected.
There ya go, that's the winner. To do otherwise would be politically stupid, and the GOP is far from politically stupid.

If anything does happen on an impeachment front, it'll be investigations/subpoenas sporadically -- if not consistently -- cropping up over the next two years. It'd serve as a way to keep "Obama embattled" and "Obama corrupt" memes in front of the populace, a set of go-to talking points for those who rely on such, and potentially serve as a fund-raising line (especially leading up to the 2012 elections).

If, in 2012, Obama doesn't get re-elected, it all gets dropped. If, OTOH, Obama wins a second term, the foundation is laid for moving forward.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Do we start the clock from now, or from when the new congresscritters are seated?

[Chronos]

There ya go, that's the winner. To do otherwise would be politically stupid, and the GOP is far from politically stupid.This past election cycle has plenty of examples of GOP political stupidity. Look at all the races where the conventional Republican would have won, but got primaried out by a Tea Partier who lost.

[DrDeth]

Do we start the clock from now, or from when the new congresscritters are seated?

Jan, of course. The big real crazies don't get seated until then.
I am taking March in the spread. :p

[Digital Stimulus]

This past election cycle has plenty of examples of GOP political stupidity. Look at all the races where the conventional Republican would have won, but got primaried out by a Tea Partier who lost.
Sure. But I'm actually impressed that the GOP did as good a job as they did at harnessing/co-opting the Tea Party. See, in support: Gauging the scope of the tea party movement in America (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/23/AR2010102304000.html), which rings true to me.
Seventy percent of the [tea party] grass-roots groups said they have not participated in any political campaigning this year....The local groups stand in contrast to - and, in their minds, apart from - a handful of large national groups that claim the tea party label. Most of those outfits, including FreedomWorks and Tea Party Express, are headed by longtime political players who have used their resources and know-how to help elect a number of candidates.
Furthermore, the GOP as a monolithic whole made large electoral gains that just 2 years ago were...let's say...unlikely. I see their not taking a few Senate seats as the price paid for the rest of those unlikely gains.