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??
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.