Skip to comments.Why Democrats love all the ‘impeach Obama’ talk (+video)
Posted on 07/26/2014 6:31:10 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
When Dan Pfeiffer sat down for a Monitor breakfast Friday with reporters, the senior Obama adviser didnt need to be asked about impeachment. He brought it up himself.
GOP House Speaker John Boehners move to sue President Obama has opened the door to Republicans possibly considering impeachment at some point in the future, Mr. Pfeiffer said.
A few hours later, White House spokesman Josh Earnest also didnt seem to mind talking impeachment, after a reporter brought up Pfeiffers comment.
There are some prominent members of the Republican Party who have articulated their support for articles of impeachment, Mr. Earnest said at his daily briefing. What were focused on is the business of the American people.
Translation: Republicans = frivolous. Democrats = serious.
It might not even be too strong to say that Democrats love all the talk of impeachment,
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
Spin Spin Spin. The truth is that Obama, Inc. is in deep shock about the growing rumble of impeachment. As Sarah said, “If Obama is not impeachable no one is.”
It is a polarizing issue. The left needs to have the groups pulling away rallied to their side.
“All we are saying, is give impeachment a chance”
No way. Just like the government shutdown the public can’t stand these tactics. We need to win ....as in elections.
Some forward looking conservatives need to pool their talents to forecast a detailed scenario of how administration will destroy the kind of lifestyles obama supporters have grown comfortable with and it has to be presented in a manner that they are accustomed to. There must be plenty of images of early communist rationing in China or Russia or from the great depression that can be given a modern or futuristic look.
The democrats need to evolve their thinking to realize that obama impeachment is in their their best interests, a good idea, and that they thought of it first.
Whether Obama deserves to be impeached is not the question.
Constitutionally -— HE DESERVES TO BE.
Whether the process will succeed or not is another question.
Even if Republicans took over the Senate and say won 10 additional seats ( unlikely but let’s just say they will for argument’s sake ), they’ll only have 55 Senate seats.
This of course assumes that ALL 55 Republicans will UNITED to impeach Obama. And even then, you’ll need to convince another 12 Democrats to come along (good luck with that).
And I’m not even sure if this will fly politically in a country as divided as ours with nearly 47% on some kind of welfare.
So, constitutionally, YES, Obama should be impeached. Practically, NO, it won’t work.
“The truth is that Obama, Inc. is in deep shock about the growing rumble of impeachment.”
I think that is certainly true in the world of traditional political logic. But his stance on illegal immigration is totally illogical in the near term political sense for his party. He seems to have embraced total anarchy and chaos for the nation and the world. Obama is the type of person who will become dangerous when he senses he is boxed in. The box is the upcoming November elections. 2014 is the year that will determine if the United States survives in its traditional form.
The Senate doesn't "impeach"
The House does.
Impeached heck he should be jailed for the rest of his miserable days. But he wont. He will lice in luxury having never worked a day in his pot smoking man loven life.
Lice = live. Stupid phone but it wasn’t too far off.
Exactly. I've been parroting this for months. The talk of taking on the WH needs to WAIT; elections are paramount here. They're setting up for '16 & beyond and impeachment-protagonists are only focused on next month.
From the article,
It might not even be too strong to say that Democrats love all the talk of impeachment...
He deserves to be impeached but at the present it would be a tactical mistake. So for the time beingheneeds to be investigated tot he fullest extent possibile and then maybe we will have something.
The Senate votes to remove him.
That didn’t work for Clinton. How’s that going to work today?
Clinton was impeached.
Nixon was not.
This is going to come back and bite the left. The more this gets out among low info voters and the reason why they will see that the jackal has betrayed them. Deep inside blacks and the working poor understand that this harms their lives and livelihoods. They hate this whole amnesty thing. In the end the only folks the left has not betrayed in their quest for power are illegals and fags. Everyone else in their base has been tossed aside either by ocare or amnesty and rapidly increasing prices in food and energy.
When it all comes down to it folks want what is in their best interest. It doesn’t matter how many ebt cards they give out if folks can no longer make the money go anywhere. They are demoralizing Americans and they will not have what it takes to fight for a fool they have grown to despise.
RE: Clinton was impeached.
Nixon was not.
Nixon would have been, but he didn’t want to subject this country and the government to this lengthy, divisive proceedings. He thought it would be better for America if he resigned.
I would say, IMHO, Nixon loved this country better than Clinton.
So, the thinking is that Democrat voters will turn out to vote in this coming election to teach the Republicans a lesson for daring to think about firing Obama?
I thought you had to be an adult to vote? Oh, not if you’re a Democrat.
A more credible analysis of the matter is in order.
Look at all the surrender monkeys on this thread saying exactly what I just sarcastically listed. Listen to Governor Palin. If they won't do the job fire them in November.
It may well hurt the rats in the near term. What it gives in return is hundreds of thousands of rat voters in less than one generation and his much anticipated “civilian army.”
Given the percentage of Range Rovers and BMW's I see with "Hillary 2016" bumper stickers on them, that's going to be a tall order.
RE: How dare these little people demand Congress do it’s job? Don’t the little people know the media will say bad things about republicans if Congress does it’s job?
So, you’re saying impeach Obama and damn the consequences, right?
He deserves to be impeached but at the present it would be a tactical mistake. So for the time beingheneeds to be investigated tot he fullest extent possibile and then maybe we will have something.”
There is only one way to do this. Take the senate with 55-56 seats so that we have some wiggle room from the squish. Once we have the senate, go nuclear. Reid opened that door, and we should remind the country of that.
Then turn Cruz, Lee and Sessions loose. Law after law after law that Obama broke goes public with the focus on our Constitution and how a “media proclaimed” constituinal scholar hasn’t a clue. Take on the intelligentsia.
Then once the votes are rounded up, forget impeachment. Go for the throat. We will have 2 full years to do this without anything the rats can do. Every time they whine about something, we ridicule them. Start lawsuits on every left wing organization. Make them spend their own money. Then defund every left wing organization that Americans fund through taxes.
We have 2 years to win this war. And we cannot do it being in the minority.
Fear not. There is no way the spineless Republicans will do anything to stop the Invasion. Or reign in the IRS. Or get the evidence from Fast and Furious.
What more could he do to USA and still be permitted to continue on our payroll? ( I guess we will find out - the hard way- since congress continues to protect him. )
Disagree. Three (good) polls came out a couple of days ago running about 65-70% AGAINST impeachment. (It all kinda depended on how the questions were worded and what questions went before). One was even Fox News.
All this is is a tactic to get OUR base to vote in Nov. The problem is, it motivates the Dim base as well, is one Hell of a fundraiser, and makes us look like kooks.
We need to pick and choose. If you throw everything at the wall all you get is a wall of poop and last time I checked no one is a fan of walls of poop.
When I tried big cases we really narrowed our focus. A bad approach whether it is in the courtroom or politics or even war is thinking that throwing everything at it wins. It almost never does. And last time I checked, the GOP EVEN if they get the Senate back in 2014, is in some real trouble in America. And while we are Conservatives (and not really the GOP) as they go down, so do we.
This is yet another mistake and obfuscates real issues we could and should be discussing. Politics isn’t about making your little group feel good, it’s about winning elections. Last I checked, the GOP fails at that rather spectacularly.
Yes I think Pfeiffer is trying to use this impeachment talk to circle the Dem wagons.
Obama also, like all community organizers, gets cheap thrills from bear-bating when he knows the bear is securely chained. He will continue to push towards dictatorship knowing that he can get away with virtually anything. The GOP cannot lay a glove on him and the press is flying cover for him.
The best way to resist him is to push at the state level to ignore the feral government altogether. Long before Lexington and Concord the colonists in New England had gone much down such a path. Crown courts were boycotted and, Crown taxcollectors ignored or worse. They basically set up a parallel social structure that sidelined Crown authority. Geo III's writ did not extend very far from the water's edge in Boston. Perry's NG gambit is a tiny step in this direction. The states should be looking for more opportunities to push DC out of the picture altogether.
If he is not stopped this year, the civilian army may make an appearance in about 2016 and for the greater public good, of course.
Importantly, the Republicans are keeping their strategy close to their chest, which is a good ploy, because it creates an air in the WH that their next big power grab scheme may be “the straw that breaks the camel’s back.”
Add to that a factor that nobody has yet considered: the SCOTUS. They have long been unfriendly to Obama, because he sneered at and derided them during a SOTU address. But they hold the key to tearing his agenda apart.
Right now, everyone is focused on the federal court Obamacare decision about giving subsidies. But soon, Boehner can sue Obama, about his abuse of power, and this will quickly go right to the SCOTUS as well.
In the year 1810, the Supreme Court decided the Marbury v. Madison case, which did several important things. Lesser known is that the court issued a “Writ of Mandamus” to the president, ordering him to comply. The president refused.
This established that the Supreme Court *cannot* force the president to act. However, they most certainly *can* make him stop acting, by invalidating what he orders the executive branch to do.
And if anyone in the executive branch decides to obey Obama instead of the Supreme Court, they are in contempt of the Supreme Court, which may order them arrested.
The only time the SCOTUS has ever sat as a trial court for contempt was in 1906, with United States v. Shipp. But if bureaucrats despised them, I don’t hesitate to think that the SCOTUS would kick seven bells out of them.
Importantly, the president cannot pardon such contempt citations, nor can he prevent the arrest or jailing of such persons.
He’s also trying to divide the conservatives into two camps. The meme the left is trying to push can be used against them.
Since the old media are complicit in the cover-up, articles of impeachment rather than a nonexistent news chronicle will serve as the permanent historical record of His presidency.
And, if we should not recover our freedoms, if we should continue our head first dive into despotism, history will record that the people of the United States made one last effort to save their republic.
Thank you for the eloquent reply. Well done!
The best way to resist him is to push at the state level to ignore the feral government altogether.
Exactly. It will require a bit of moral fortitude but if they are willing to "bait the bear" in return, they could turn this country around. This is the way to do it and at this juncture probably the only way.
You nailed it.
take a page out of their play book and change the wording
don’t say ‘impeach’ ... instead, just say he’s going to get ‘FIRED’
people can understand getting fired for not doing your job
And just for the record I’m opposed to impeachment. If we wait another 6 mos we can skip it and just move on to forcibly remove from office and incarcerate.
They conduct the trial AFTER he is impeached...
RE: pssst the Senate does not having anything to do with the process of impeaching a President.
What is the purpose of impeaching the President? To bring a message or to remove him from office?
If it is the former, yes, I agree.
If it is the latter, then the Senate is involved.
So, let’s make up our minds, what is it we want?
RE: The benefit of an impeachment would be the airing/disclosure of Obamas high crimes.
So I guess what you’re saying is the purpose is not to remove him from office (because the chances of that happening are slim to none ) but to make his high crimes more apparent to the public...
OK, when is the most feasible time to do that? Now or after November 2014?
RE: Impeachment means nothing without the Senate following through, and as long as Harry Reid is in control, there is nothing to fear on that account.
And even if by some miracle harry Reid is no longer majority leader and the GOP won 10 senate seats in 2014, you will need another 12 Democrats to remove him from office.
As I said, if you’re going to impeach Obama, just remember, the whole exercise is simply to highlight his high crimes against the constitution (i.e. send a message to the American people ). Just don’t expect him to be removed from office.
RE: dont say impeach ... instead, just say hes going to get FIRED
people can understand getting fired for not doing your job
Firing means removal from office. Unfortunately for us who want him fired, the constitutional process is long and tedious.
Congress will have to impeach him, then he has to be tried in Senate. That’s not going to happen this year with Harry Reid as majority leader.
I highly doubt that Obama can be fired even if the Senate were taken over by the GOP. You’ll need 2/3 of the Senate to vote to remove him. The chances are slim to none.
Hence, I conclude that the purpose of impeachment at this time is simply to highlight and disclose to the public Obama’s high crimes and misdemeanor. That’s all you can do.
you also force the senate to defend his actions in front of the American people...
many of which would be hearing of these issues for the first time
The only way the Senate is involved is if they decide to hold a trial. They don't get a say on impeachment. Impeachment is the process of bringing charges.
When using language you must be precise or you spread disinformation.
Clinton WAS impeached Nixon WAS NOT impeached though a majority of the uniformed public think the opposite is true of each.
RE: Clinton WAS impeached Nixon WAS NOT impeached though a majority of the uniformed public think the opposite is true of each.
See my post #17 above.
You can assume that there will be some serious blackmail going on behind the scenes. There was during the Clinton impeachment and this time they will pull out all the stops. They are playing for keeps and if we aren’t playing for keeps likewise then its all just tiddlywinks.
Problem for the Democrats is that by trying to goad the GOP into impeaching Obama they are looking like they may think impeachment is a necessary thing.
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.