You Have to Give It to the President

National Review (Corner) ^ | 11/20/14 | Daniel Foster

[madprof98]

It’s a brilliant, brutally cynical near-term gambit. He delayed action until after the election, he even told everybody he was doing it! And then he completely screwed over the incoming Republican majority, making their lame-duck and first 100 days a complete pain-in-the-ass, while shoring up support among his progressive doubters who, if you watched MSNBC tonight, are back to 2008 levels of adoration.

Still, what are the Republicans going to do? Impeach him? There’s a smart-ish strategy that involves funding the rest of the government while denying DHS the funds to enforce His Majesty’s edict. But when POTUS vetoes it, what will they do then? Most likely John Boehner and Mitch McConnell will seek some face-saving move that has the effect of letting “prosecutorial discretion” proceed apace. It might be an enforcement-first measure that doesn’t require the president to actually reverse course on amnesty. Or, hey, maybe somebody will sue him, but the chief political virtue of that move is that it stretches out the proceedings along a long enough timeline that they can move on to other things, pick their next battle.

[tacticalogic]

The requirements and standards Obama outlined for obtaining work authorization and not being deported for 3 years are as stringent as those that used to be applied in immigration court to those who wanted to stay in the US permanently!

If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor........

[Elsie]

They don’t have the manpower to process 5 million work permits.

Do they have the manpower to enter all the EMPLOYERS of illegals and assess the fine?

Simple Solution is to fine employers of illegals $10,000 per person and watch how fast they self-deport.

[Elsie]

YOu are assuming that Obama will actually enforce that requirement.

Well; he sure has enforced all the immigration laws up to now; hasn't he??

[Elsie]

Irony is, it's black US citizens who suffer the most, and their leaders are too busy defending thugs to speak out.

OUCH!

[Elsie]

(Thanks, 0bama voters.)

Many on FR would say:

Thanks, non-Romney voters!!

[Elsie]

(”The ship be sinking.”)

Dey don’t call ‘em Anchor Children fer nuttin’!

[DugwayDuke]

Because after the dust settles and the Senate votes the POTUS will still be Barak Obama. Now here’s the bad news. The Republicans will have been made to look foolish and ineffective, the now disillusioned democrat base will be energized, and the democrat fund raising will have been phenomenal.

Haven’t you figured it out that Obama wants the GOP to impeach him? Why play his game? Obama is the matador and amnesty is his cape. Now why do you want to play the part of the bull? It never works out for the bull, does it?

[stremba]

Probably, it’s even worse than that. Can you count on Lindsay Graham, John McCain, and other RINOs to vote for removal? I wouldn’t bet any money on the RINOs coming through.

[stremba]

I’m not sure Obama particularly cares about his legacy. His self-stated goal is to “fundamentally transform America.” I am pretty certain that if he succeeds in that goal, he won’t give a flying fig what people think about his legacy.

[DestroyLiberalism]

DugwayDuke wrote:
<<
Haven’t you figured it out that Obama wants the GOP to impeach him? Why play his game? Obama is the matador and amnesty is his cape. Now why do you want to play the part of the bull? It never works out for the bull, does it?
>>

************************************************************

Here’s a comment I posted in another thread making the case for impeachment:

“Only two U.S. presidents have ever been impeached and, even though neither were removed from office, it still leaves a nasty stain on their legacy. (Don’t believe me? Ask anyone you know what the first thing is that comes to mind when hearing Bill Clinton’s name and they will almost certainly bring up Monica Lewinsky.) I will concede that in Obama’s evil and diabolical world, he would likely view impeachment as a vehicle to martyrdom. Even so, this not an excuse to take this constitutional remedy off the table. Simply allowing the Kenyan Marxist to get away with violating our Constitution’s separation of powers and his flagrant usurpation of Congress should NOT be an option.”

At some point, I believe the GOP simply has to do the right thing, even if it may not always be the most popular or politically expedient route.

[DugwayDuke]

I understand your point and it is a question of values.

You talk about Clinton/Lewinsky. Yes, bring up Clinton and many people think about Lewinsky. Very few approved of what Clinton did with Lewinsky but even fewer approved of his impeachment.

You believe it is important to make a statement of disapproval. OK, but what does that accomplish besides making you feel good?

OTOH, this statement of disapproval, the impeachment of the First Black President, has some very significant associated costs. Among other things, it will be viewed as racist by a very significant portion of the electorate and will be baggage that the GOP will have to carry for many years.

Furthermore, it would be a distraction from other important matters such as the debt, terrorism, national security, jobs, etc,. I believe the American people did not elect republicans to go on, what they would perceive as, a witch hunt on impeachment. The GOP needs to focus on the other matters, like the economy and jobs, that they were voted into office to fix.

[right way right]

The pubes should lay a big fat bill for very simple to understand border reinforcement on Obola Let him veto it.

Strengthen enforcement by shear numbers of agents, no detention centers, immediate return back over the border only.
No judges, no hearings, no exceptions.
The goal is to make the effort of jumping the border a hopeless effort.

Fight the Amnesty as completely separate by de-funding work permits etc.
If work permits are not stoppable maybe special number designation to mark these amnesty freeloaders for who they are, so that businesses can decide if they truly want to take part in this abomination against this country.

[DestroyLiberalism]

DugwayDuke wrote:
<<
You believe it is important to make a statement of disapproval. OK, but what does that accomplish besides making you feel good?
>>

I see it as a statement that we as a nation should not allow the President of the United States to get away with flagrantly breaking the law and violating the U.S. Constitution. Otherwise, it sets a horrible precedent, one in which future Democrat presidents will undoubtedly feel emboldened to continue engaging in unconstitutional power grabs and turning the executive branch into a dictatorship.

************************************************************

<<
OTOH, this statement of disapproval, the impeachment of the First Black President, has some very significant associated costs. Among other things, it will be viewed as racist by a very significant portion of the electorate and will be baggage that the GOP will have to carry for many years.
>>

Of course, the Dems know that as long as they can keep sending non-white males into the Oval Office, then the GOP will remain too frightened to hold any of them accountable for violating the Constitution, whether we’re talking the first black president... first female president... first Hispanic president... first openly gay president, etc.

By the way, do we have any hard data that Obama would suddenly see a massive surge in popularity if the GOP were to try to impeach him? Over the past six years, this man is mired in so many aggregious scandals (Benghazi, Obamacare lies, IRS targeting, the VA, NSA snooping, Fast and Furious, Solyndra, etc. etc.) and has literally done so much to make so many people hate his guts that I’m not sure I buy into that assumption.

Now let me just say for the record, I do not think impeachment should be the GOP’s first option. I am much more in favor of Congress exercising its Power of the Purse by passing individual spending bills that cover the federal government’s mandatory budget expenditures and ultimately excludes funding for Obamacare or amnesty. If this leads to a huge fight and a partial government shutdown that indefinitely halts non-essential federal services, then that’s fine by me. I can tell you my life will certainly not suffer over a federal government suddenly forced to reduce itself by 17%!

************************************************************

<<
Furthermore, it would be a distraction from other important matters such as the debt, terrorism, national security, jobs, etc,. I believe the American people did not elect republicans to go on, what they would perceive as, a witch hunt on impeachment. The GOP needs to focus on the other matters, like the economy and jobs, that they were voted into office to fix.
>>

No question, these issues all need to be addressed and fixed. But do you really believe the GOP will be able to successfully tackle any of this as long as Obama is in office??

[DugwayDuke]

It still is only a statement which will accomplish nothing. Obama will still be in office after the statement is made. That’s why is said it’s only effect will be to make some feel good.

Now, there is another option. The House can pass a bill censuring the president for all of the actions you referenced. You could even have a series of hearings to make the case. Of course, they will be ignored by the media... Censure would not require a vote in the Senate.

Massive surge. I don’t really think there would be a massive surge but Obama has lost a significant percentage of his support among liberals. Mostly because he has not been liberal enough. They would rally back if he were impeached.

I’m more concerned about what an impeachment would have upon the popularity of the republicans. Not a single one made impeachment part of his election campaign. The American people voted for a party to get the economy going again, create jobs, etc. They would not look kindly upon what they would see as a distraction from what they voted to do.

Using the power of the purse is theoretically useful but it will lead directly to a government shutdown. Once again, the republicans did not run on shutting down the government and to do so would cost them immensely.

You’re correct, it will be difficult to fix most of those problems with Obama in office and prepared to veto most worthwhile bills. Yet, sending up a stream of bills which most people would see as helpful in fixing the economy and create jobs would be useful and would force Obama to make a choice to support those or to veto them. If he signs them it would be a repudiation for his policies and if he vetos them then he would be seen as an obstructionist.

Sending up those bills would also have an effect on the 2016 election building a case for a republican house, senate, and president. And, it would have the effect of making Hillary choose between repudiating Obama (which would sour the liberal base) or repudiating an improved economy, jobs, etc.