I thought you were supposed to be a lawyer, Oakminister, one so good he’s got his own practice. Why the fuck don’t you make an actual argument comparing this to birtherism? You claim that RickJay saying this stuff is so offensive, why don’t you actually show a bit of brains and balls and actually try to stop it?
Even if you don’t think this is an attempt to vilify the president for future impeachment, it still is a something that could conceivably be the case. Unlike birthers, we have zero evidence that this is not the case. This isn’t even a conspiracy theory, as there’s no allegation of anyone keeping secrets. There’s just the allegation of people hating Obama so much that they will stoop to anything to thwart him. Nobody needs to be in on anything. Remember, we already have one congressperson who said the Republicans’ goal is to do ANYTHING to keep Obama from being elected.
I personally think like elucidator: they aren’t smart enough to have come up with a plan like that this fast. But it’s still not some complete impossibility like Obama being born in Kenya.
I don’t think the Republicans will try to impeach Obama. They know they don’t have the votes in the senate, and will only make fools of themselves, possibly losing seats.
That said, I don’t see how prognosticating an attempt to impeach Obama is even in the same league as birtherism. The one is an arguable political prediction. The other is flat out factually wrong.
I dunno, if just 14 years previously we’d found out that Our President had been born in Chile, there’d be something to consider regarding the Birther movement.
But that didn’t happen. Instead there was a completely baseless impeachment we as a nation were forced to go through. So, you know, you play with the reality you’re dealt.
I want to know if …say…six months from now, Obama has not been impeached, will you have the sack to admit you were wrong? I doubt it. But I’ll bookmark this thread so I can remind you.
After the Petraus testimony yesterday, Republican members of Congress have their tails between their legs, and even Fox News has moved the story off the headlines (now it’s Israel). So it’s not going to happen, but if they found any meat on the bone of Benghazi, they would have gone for it.
Unfortunately for them, Benghazi was just a popcorn fart.
:rolleyes: Again, I think you get my point - there are a whole shitload of eligible voters who aren’t going to have the reaction to the phrase “Watergate-style hearings” that John McCain is hoping for. According to the 2010 census, there are 112,806,642 people in the U.S. aged 18-44. There are 121,757,429 people aged 45 and above. Some percentage of that last group (the 45-55ish people) aren’t going to have much, if any, real memory of Watergate and the Watergate hearings because they were too busy doing kid stuff to be bothered to follow it.
It’s the same way my kids react to 9/11, which happened before they were born. They understand the facts, but they don’t have the same gut-level reaction as someone who actually watched it happening live on tv and followed the minute by minute, day by day confusion and fear as things played out. McCain alludes to Watergate in order to recreate that gut-level reaction people had as Watergate unfolded. For about half of his audience, it falls flat. He seems to have forgotten that there are a lot of people in this country who are younger than the Baby Boomers, which seems to have been a problem for the Republican party in general this election cycle.
My google-fu is failing me. Can someone post a link to an actual quote from Senator McCain where he uses the word “Watergate” in his descriptions of the incident or his calls for investigation?
Come on, people, I was born in 1975 and I completely understand the meaning and seriousness of “Watergate.” It brought a fucking president down. Any fucking moron who got a D or higher in 9th grade U.S. History knows this. They might not know the details, they might not know it was a DC hotel, but they know the term “Watergate” and what it means when used in reference to the presidency.
I admit I was just going by what was said in this thread. When I google it, there are numerous news stories from various sources that use the phrase, “Sen. John McCain’s request for a Watergate-style congressional committee,” but I’m not finding a direct quote from him that uses that phrase. If he never used it, then my rant about the topic is baseless and I apologize.
I’m pretty sure I never said that people born after Watergate have never heard of it or that they wouldn’t recognize it as a major event in U.S. history. I said that they wouldn’t have the gut-level reaction that people who lived through it would have.
Looking it up myself, I see that he actually doesn’t say “Watergate-style hearing.” In a joint press release, McCain, Graham and Ayotte call for a “Select Committee” with members of the House and Senate from a spectrum of legislative committees. I see the media, both lefty, righty and in-betweeny, professional and bloggers, have interpreted that as “Watergate-style hearings.”
Who needs a gut reaction? My point is that almost anyone recognizes Watergate as taking down a president, not just some major event in U.S. history. When bringing up Watergate and the presidency, you don’t need some gut reaction from having lived through it to fully grasp the meaning.
Eh, maybe. The point seems kind of moot now, but I do think when politicians throw these references out, they’re going for more of a fear reaction than an intellectual connection to past events.
I’d say there’s an age factor involved in the reaction to the term ‘Watergate’. I’d also say that McCain is stuck in the past. But ‘Watergate’ is now the root of all ‘-gates’ and connotes a scandal that brings down those in power where ever applied. I declare this argument a draw. Unless you’re willing to enter sudden death overtime.
