Posted on 11/03/2010 11:01:38 AM PDT by bestintxas
Today’s DNC Media template: rather than addressing issues important to the voters, the newly elected GOP House is going to use its power to persecute the honest, hard-working Rats.
If these two ethics trials become dog and pony shows it will again hurt the dems. Especially if they try to shield the culprits.
do not look for them to get off easy.
Course my idea of hangings won’t go over as I’d hope.
“Much as it would be good political theatre, impeachment would waste a lot of money for no gain. There is no chance of a conviction in the Senate and the very act of impeachment might rile the Democratic base to show up for the 2012 elections.”
Well, I would like to “rile up the Democratic base” after impeachment just like we were able to get a Republican elected 2X after Clinton’s impeachment, wouldn’t you?
The purpose is not to convict, but to neuter. We have a sitting President who, while clearly incompetent to hold the post, is likely not even eligible to do so. Americans must demonstrate, to both its citizens and the world, that this, as well as clearly unconstitutional acts, is clearly against our principles as well as out Constitution. Removal from office is not going to happen, but the perceptions of wrongdoings, just like Rangel and Waters, is the key component.
I have a big knife I would let you borrow.
“You will need a high crime or misdemeanor first.”
Oh, you mean like trying to offer Joe Sestak a govt job in exchange for not running in PA or coercing Blagovich into appointing a WH-approved Senator or how about being lying about being a US-born citizen or etc.?
“before these professional politicans start impeachment proceedings against fubo, with a senate that will never approve, “
If you read the Constitution, you will find out that the Senate has zero respoonsibility to impeach. That act belongs exclusively to the House.
“Really, there’s nothing to be gained by impeachment except martyrdom for 0bamadinijad.
But... there can be some investigations into SSN theft/misuse, and perhaps some subpoenas having to do with the citizenship he used to get scholarships, etc.”
You are presuming that the investigations will result in nothing that warrants impeachment. Why? There is plenty that can more than likely be found.
Nothing gained? After Clinton was impeached, Republicans were able to elect, then re-elect a GOP POTUS. Clinton became much less relavant afterwards.
In fact the election returns favoring Democrats were pretty much the death knell of any chance of actually getting a conviction.
Cut of the flow of Cash for their Pork barrel projects and the snakes will leave.
We impeached Clinton and the US would vote him back in office if the constitution allowed it. So I ask once again what did we gain.
The way it looks now to me Hillary will probaly face BHO in the 2012 primary. Not sure we can beat her if the class of 2010 spends there time frittering around with trying to convicts the crooks in Washington.
There are crooks on both sides of the aisle. The only answer is to quit sending them to Washington and for the ones that continue to slip through is to remove there reason for being there. USD$$
“The last time we had impeachment proceedings, the Democrats won big.”
Was George Bush really a Democrat when he won 2X the Presidency?
“So I ask once again what did we gain.”
Ok, let’s start with a Republican elected twice as POTUS. He gave us 2 excellent Supreme Court Justices, the dilution of terrorism against the USA, two huge tax cuts we enjoyed during the decade, and a morality that was not present during the Clinton years.
Could we have done better? Yes. Bush was very disappointing in other areas and a true Reagan conservative would have served us even better. Nevertheless, we still gained mightedly.
In 1998, amid the impeachment and trial of Clinton, the Democrats did indeed win big in an “off year” election.
And Bush didn't win against Clinton, he won against Gore and then Kerry.
Your premise that impeachment would taint 0bama and lead to Republican electoral victories doesn't have precedence going for it, no matter how much you try to insist that Bush owed his electoral victories to the Clinton impeachment.
Bush won in 2000 and 2004.
In 1998, amid the impeachment and trial of Clinton, the Democrats did indeed win big in an “off year” election.
“And Bush didn’t win against Clinton, he won against Gore and then Kerry.
Your premise that impeachment would taint 0bama and lead to Republican electoral victories doesn’t have precedence going for it, no matter how much you try to insist that Bush owed his electoral victories to the Clinton impeachment.”
I never said he ran against Clinton, so I do not know where you inferred that. What you can infer from what I said was the impeachment of a Dem President was shortly followed by the successful election, then reelection of a GOP President.
If you think it was a coincidence that’s certainly your opinion. I just state facts.
You think these things have a two year lag time? DURING the impeachment it was a boon to the electoral chances of Democrats, but two years after it was a detriment? Really?
That takes some impressive mental gymnastics! Don't hurt yourself.
You really think it is all that fantastic an idea to believe that American voters decided to bring in someone from the other party instead of the party having a scandal-plagued POTUS?
Why on earth is that so difficult to understand?
In 1998 it was in the news EVERY DAY, and the American electorate rewarded the party of Clinton, the defenders of Clinton's perjury and obstruction of justice, with massive electoral success.
That IS difficult to understand, but that it happened shouldn't be in dispute.
Republicans were expecting a different outcome. They thought that a “scandal-plagued POTUS” would be a boon to their electoral chances. They were disappointed BIG TIME.
Why is that so difficult to understand?
That Bush eked out an electoral victory amid a popular vote loss shows that he had a smart campaign, it hardly indicates the mood of the nation was “out with the Party of adulterous perjurous sexual harassers” - the majority of voters in 2000 voted for Gore!
So by your logic, if we impeach 0bama, we may well lose big time immediately after (via 1998) but go on to win the Presidency twice after that (via 2000 and 2004)- but only if we can eke out an electoral victory amid a popular vote loss.
Yeah..... brilliant strategerizing!
You would first need an Independent Counsel to establish the former.
The latter is not an impeachable offense. It's an ejectable offense. But first you would need convincing evidence. Overwhelming evidence, even more obvious than refs need for overturning a call in a video challenge, because no one is going to listen to it otherwise. They haven't been for more than 2 years already.
By the way, the most efficient way to establish the “non-citizen” argument would be to work at the state level to require it to be put on the ballot in 2012. Anything at the Congressional level will take more than two years anyway.
the house brings up the charges and writes the articles of impeachment....the senate votes to impeach or not.....aka clintoon......read a little further into the constitution
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.