The I word.
I heard Michael Medved saying how he was all for Clinton’s impeachment but in retrospect it backfired. So he wouldn’t be for an Obama impeachment.
I think that’s a view of the GOPe and others who don’t want to appear to extreme or radical.
But, Medved seems to forget that Al Gore lost.
Impeachment of Clinton was not futile or counter productive.
It did hurt the congressional careers of certain leaders at the time, eg Jim Rogan, who was targeted and lost his seat.
But without it the sitting VP most likely would have won the 2000 election.
So don’t let the naysayers make this argument.
If they argue Clinton’s impeachment backfired, just ask them what does President Gore think of that premise?
Put the heat on Obama - REAL HEAT - and he’ll crack.
Start at least talking about impeachment and LAY DOWN THE REASONS WHY and the majority of American people will rally around it.
Because he was impeached proved that the Constitution was still in effect back then. We can thank a few pre-GOPe senators for his not being convicted.
Don't know what to say about Obama and his persistent infractions of the rule of law, common decency and common sense.
The Republicans let the leftists define the debate (as usual). Had Republicans who were accused of wanting to "undo the election" gone on record as saying that they didn't really want to face the 2000 election against an incumbent Al Gore who would be eligible for re-election twice, but that they were nonetheless duty bound to remove a President who broke the law, I don't think the leftists would have had a good counter for that.
The Republicans today have a different problem: a lot of people not only find Obama's conduct insufficient to justify impeachment, but actually regard it as praiseworthy. Claims that impeachment was an attempt to undo the election would have more merit now than in 1998. Republicans would have to instead argue that the only legitimate way to get around the Constitution's limits is to amend that document; even if a party won a landslide and controlled enough legislatures to amend the Constitution, it would still be unlawful for them to do anything which the Constitution didn't allow unless or until such time as the Constitution was amended to allow it.
Good point. It supports my belief that doing the right thing is always right, and political considerations often muddy the waters of clear ethical thinking.
Trying and failing doesn’t mean it was wrong to try.
Do the right thing: Impeach.
.
.
.
and btw, the left is never discouraged by failure. They just try again and again until they get what they want. We should have the same determination and tenacity. One of the few things to be admired about them. They just always apply that determination and tenacity to the wrong issues.