by Smitty
iOwnTheWorld echoes a Jeffrey Kuhner editorial in the Washington Times about the need to impeach BHO:
If Republicans win back Congress in November, they should – and likely will – launch formal investigations into this criminal, scandal-ridden administration. Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican and ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has promised as much. Mr. Obama has betrayed the American people. Impeachment is the only answer. This usurper must fall.
No, really, impeachment isn’t the only answer. For example, there is a Presidential election in 2012. Unless you’re going to argue that it’s all a farce, the fix is in, and the event will be a dog’n’pony, impeachment is not ‘the only’ answer.
More to the point, as I’ve argued elsewhere, BHO is more symptom than disease. Impeaching him might bring pleasure to some. That pleasure, along with $5, will still get you a beverage at Starbucks.
- That Federal overreach problem would still exist in any case, as the SCOTUS pries the words “general welfare” far enough apart, like some vast python, to devour the entire body politic.
- The Federal Reserve would still be easing vast quantities of suppository into a public orifice near you.
- The Federal bureaucracy will remain. It, along with the lobbyists, write and administer the colostomy-bag-of-tricks that today we call “legislation”. They will continue wielding the Pen of Damocles in a way that will have you begging for the Sword.
I’ll double down.
The whole impeachment meme is a variation on Alinsky Rule 12. The entry level course would use personalize the opposition, and make them an example.
An advanced usage of Rule 12, call it 12.5, could be having a polarizing figure like BHO suck the oxygen out of the room. Long before Alinsky, there was chess. In chess, controlling tempo is crucial. Controlling the news cycle is the goal here. Accepting some damage on one flank might limit damage in a more vulnerable location. Say:
- the economy
- existing bankrupt entitlements
- Constitutionality of new entitlements
There might be some temptation to think that an Alinsky Rule #9 threat of impeachment is helpful. Yuck. Real adults don’t play cheezy games. If the members of the Congress won’t support Impeachment, either for reasons of partisanship or a squishy case, then just forget it. Impeachment is not the sort of thing to try: it’s a ‘not-do’ until such a hypothetical time when a ‘do’ should arrive. Consider Blago before taking the eye off the ball. Consider that Ryan’s Roadmap is the closest thing to a recovery strategy around, and where is the buy-in?
The last decade has seen both the consolidation of power in the Executive, and a continuous assault on whoever is in the Oval Office. In a whacky retro way, restoring Federalism and separation of powers is the answer, not impeachment. Focus on the disease, not the symptoms, people.
Impeachment should join Birtherism and Is-he-Islamic-ism in the ‘blah, blah, blah’ bin.
F’ing A’, Smitty. Spot on.
F’ing A’, Smitty. Spot on.
Well said. I much prefer that we avoid the junior high school-girl histrionics and focus on something productive.
Oh, and “Colostomy-bag-of-tricks”… filing that one away for later.
Well said. I much prefer that we avoid the junior high school-girl histrionics and focus on something productive.
Oh, and “Colostomy-bag-of-tricks”… filing that one away for later.
Smitty,
Good point.
History cycled itself out in 99 (from the earlier 73 Impeachment). When I lived on DC and was on the Hill, I knew that history never left.
The best way to defeat this Administration after we win the Congress (Crossing fingers given what’s going on in CA), subpeona, subpeona, subpeona.
The first on the subpeona list is anyone who was on “Journolist,” Second, anyone who tried to sell Gov’t on “Global warming,” [HINT: IT’S CALLED SUMMER], and the third: who is paying for the Wed. Night White House parties? If it’s the taxpayers, get POTUS to pay back the American people.
And iof course, roll back Obamacare through the Appropriations process.
And come 2012, our champion will come through. President Palin here we come!
Smitty,
Good point.
History cycled itself out in 99 (from the earlier 73 Impeachment). When I lived on DC and was on the Hill, I knew that history never left.
The best way to defeat this Administration after we win the Congress (Crossing fingers given what’s going on in CA), subpeona, subpeona, subpeona.
The first on the subpeona list is anyone who was on “Journolist,” Second, anyone who tried to sell Gov’t on “Global warming,” [HINT: IT’S CALLED SUMMER], and the third: who is paying for the Wed. Night White House parties? If it’s the taxpayers, get POTUS to pay back the American people.
And iof course, roll back Obamacare through the Appropriations process.
And come 2012, our champion will come through. President Palin here we come!
Impeachment talk is probably good in an election year, but it isn’t realistic.
Impeachment talk is probably good in an election year, but it isn’t realistic.
I agree, Smitty, but I want to add three words:
Joe. Biden. President!?!?!?!?!
Seriously — impeaching Obama is not the right answer. As you say, he’s a symptom, not the disease.
Certainly, criminal investigations are in order, with indictments as dictated by the results, but that would require a certain amount of cooperation by Holder. Who doubtless has considerable reason not to cooperate. As he already demonstrated.
Congressional inquiries would be less satisfactory, IMHO, because they would necessarily be partisan, with the resulting fooraw diverting from the real problem. And I’d really prefer to avoid yet another special prosecutor.
A better course of action would be submitting bills to reduce the Federal government overreach. For example, repealing ObamaCare. The Won™ could veto that, especially if Congress doesn’t have the votes to override a veto. But I think that would be more useful, because hearings would still be required, hearings focused on <ifixing problems, not just complaining about them. As most hearings today do.
And that assumes Obama has the cojones to actually veto any bill, even one that is the hallmark of his administration. The man is committed to not being committed, he might actually let that one through. I doubt it, but the effort alone would be worth the results.
I agree, Smitty, but I want to add three words:
Joe. Biden. President!?!?!?!?!
Seriously — impeaching Obama is not the right answer. As you say, he’s a symptom, not the disease.
Certainly, criminal investigations are in order, with indictments as dictated by the results, but that would require a certain amount of cooperation by Holder. Who doubtless has considerable reason not to cooperate. As he already demonstrated.
Congressional inquiries would be less satisfactory, IMHO, because they would necessarily be partisan, with the resulting fooraw diverting from the real problem. And I’d really prefer to avoid yet another special prosecutor.
A better course of action would be submitting bills to reduce the Federal government overreach. For example, repealing ObamaCare. The Won™ could veto that, especially if Congress doesn’t have the votes to override a veto. But I think that would be more useful, because hearings would still be required, hearings focused on <ifixing problems, not just complaining about them. As most hearings today do.
And that assumes Obama has the cojones to actually veto any bill, even one that is the hallmark of his administration. The man is committed to not being committed, he might actually let that one through. I doubt it, but the effort alone would be worth the results.
What about a “forced resignation,’ a la Richard M. Nixon?? That has many Constitutional advantages!!!!
It would be the way Obama could avoid being jailed, It has certain advantages for him, And total advantage for the nation!
Think about it!!!
What about a “forced resignation,’ a la Richard M. Nixon?? That has many Constitutional advantages!!!!
It would be the way Obama could avoid being jailed, It has certain advantages for him, And total advantage for the nation!
Think about it!!!
Colossal waste of time to talk about impeachment. Obama could kill kittens live on stage in a special broadcast to the nation and he would never be impeached.
Colossal waste of time to talk about impeachment. Obama could kill kittens live on stage in a special broadcast to the nation and he would never be impeached.
On the one hand, probably every president since Grover Cleveland has deserved to be impeached.
On the other hand, any likely impeachment move would be for all the wrong reasons, as Congress, including significant portions of both party caucuses, tends to be be in continuing conspiracy with the White House on the actual impeachment-worthy offenses.
On the third hand, the last impeachment exercise seemed to hurt the Republicans behind it more than it hurt the president targeted by it.
And on the fourth hand (I’m a veritable Hindu deity today), while the Republicans are likely to pick up seats in November, I don’t think we’re looking at a 1994-type new Republican majority. I’ll be surprised if they get the majority of either house, VERY surprised if they manage a majority of both houses, and surprised beyond belief if they get majorities in both houses that don’t include enough “moderate Republicans” to queer anything as bold as impeachment.
On the one hand, probably every president since Grover Cleveland has deserved to be impeached.
On the other hand, any likely impeachment move would be for all the wrong reasons, as Congress, including significant portions of both party caucuses, tends to be be in continuing conspiracy with the White House on the actual impeachment-worthy offenses.
On the third hand, the last impeachment exercise seemed to hurt the Republicans behind it more than it hurt the president targeted by it.
And on the fourth hand (I’m a veritable Hindu deity today), while the Republicans are likely to pick up seats in November, I don’t think we’re looking at a 1994-type new Republican majority. I’ll be surprised if they get the majority of either house, VERY surprised if they manage a majority of both houses, and surprised beyond belief if they get majorities in both houses that don’t include enough “moderate Republicans” to queer anything as bold as impeachment.
Impeachment would be a major distraction. I much prefer to watch BHO founder and twitch out the remaining two years so he can solidify his place as worst president ever. Besides the distraction would pull away resources we need to actually start repairing the damage this man has done. I want all my elected officials concentrating on the economy (and possibly nuking Iran).
Impeachment would be a major distraction. I much prefer to watch BHO founder and twitch out the remaining two years so he can solidify his place as worst president ever. Besides the distraction would pull away resources we need to actually start repairing the damage this man has done. I want all my elected officials concentrating on the economy (and possibly nuking Iran).
Robert wrote:
Robert wrote:
Robert wrote:
If and when the economy recovers, the credit (whether its due or not due is immaterial) would go to Obama and his approval numbers will surely go up.
And if the US is going to nuke Iran, Obama’s favorability among the Republicans and the neo-con pundits will go up and up and up. Though, surely he will face a strong primary with the support of the progressive left.
So pray that the economy doesn’t recover and Iran doesn’t get nuked, stupid.
Robert wrote:
If and when the economy recovers, the credit (whether its due or not due is immaterial) would go to Obama and his approval numbers will surely go up.
And if the US is going to nuke Iran, Obama’s favorability among the Republicans and the neo-con pundits will go up and up and up. Though, surely he will face a strong primary with the support of the progressive left.
So pray that the economy doesn’t recover and Iran doesn’t get nuked, stupid.
Worst president ever? On what scale does he even come close to Wilson, FDR or Nixon?
I tend to see presidencies in overlapping clumps with a few outliers.
Fifty years from now, the only thing that will greatly distinguish Obama from Bush 43 is that he was the first black president.
Reagan may remain a slight outlier from the Carter/Reagan/Bush 41/Clinton continuum, but probably not so much as he’s perceived as being today.
Hell, it’s already getting hard to remember the differences between LBJ and Nixon.
Worst president ever? On what scale does he even come close to Wilson, FDR or Nixon?
I tend to see presidencies in overlapping clumps with a few outliers.
Fifty years from now, the only thing that will greatly distinguish Obama from Bush 43 is that he was the first black president.
Reagan may remain a slight outlier from the Carter/Reagan/Bush 41/Clinton continuum, but probably not so much as he’s perceived as being today.
Hell, it’s already getting hard to remember the differences between LBJ and Nixon.
And as far as “two more years” goes, unless the Republicans find some better horses going into 2012, it’s probably going to be six more years.
The only likely candidate (in terms of horses who are obviously playing at running at the moment) who could plausibly beat Obama is Gingrich, and he’s got too much realpolitik baggage to get the conservative support he needs for the GOP nod, especially after the McCain fiasco.
And that’s before we even see the 2010 congressional results. If the GOP picks up a majority in either house of Congress, Obama’s got a free ride in 2012 just like Clinton had in 1996 — “it’s all the fault of those obstructionist Republicans … can’t get a damn thing done around here.”
And as far as “two more years” goes, unless the Republicans find some better horses going into 2012, it’s probably going to be six more years.
The only likely candidate (in terms of horses who are obviously playing at running at the moment) who could plausibly beat Obama is Gingrich, and he’s got too much realpolitik baggage to get the conservative support he needs for the GOP nod, especially after the McCain fiasco.
And that’s before we even see the 2010 congressional results. If the GOP picks up a majority in either house of Congress, Obama’s got a free ride in 2012 just like Clinton had in 1996 — “it’s all the fault of those obstructionist Republicans … can’t get a damn thing done around here.”
Trying to impeach Obama at this point will result in two things: martyrdom for Obama (and the Dems by association) if it fails, and risking Biden as a fill-in president.
A classic case of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”
Trying to impeach Obama at this point will result in two things: martyrdom for Obama (and the Dems by association) if it fails, and risking Biden as a fill-in president.
A classic case of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”
Let me get this straight… a stupid Canook (Canadian) is opining about American politics?
Give me a break.
Of course, it works for Frum.
Let me get this straight… a stupid Canook (Canadian) is opining about American politics?
Give me a break.
Of course, it works for Frum.
Impeachment? The guy writing this must be a Democrat trying to scare independents into voting for the Dems just to avoid the stupidity.
Impeachment? The guy writing this must be a Democrat trying to scare independents into voting for the Dems just to avoid the stupidity.
1) Talk of impeachment is NOT a waste of time, nor is the investigation by those who wish to impeach BHO. The actual congressional process? Perhaps. The threat of impeachment is another thing for BHO’s people to have to waste time on, and is a good thing.
President Joe Biden might have some balls in foreign policy, after all. He couldn’t be worse in any area, so the “threat” of President JRB is null.
2) In chess one strives to have, or control, the initiative, and seeks to accumulate tempi (plural of tempo). Tempo (tempi) in chess usually refers to how many “moves” one is ahead of the opponent in development or in a combination. Any old warhorse can tell you how important the initiative is. And the threat of impeachment, seeing how BHO has given and continues to give cause for impeachment, is a great tool to achieve impeachment and make BHO and the Dems defend. Being on the offense is generally much better than being on the defense.
1) Talk of impeachment is NOT a waste of time, nor is the investigation by those who wish to impeach BHO. The actual congressional process? Perhaps. The threat of impeachment is another thing for BHO’s people to have to waste time on, and is a good thing.
President Joe Biden might have some balls in foreign policy, after all. He couldn’t be worse in any area, so the “threat” of President JRB is null.
2) In chess one strives to have, or control, the initiative, and seeks to accumulate tempi (plural of tempo). Tempo (tempi) in chess usually refers to how many “moves” one is ahead of the opponent in development or in a combination. Any old warhorse can tell you how important the initiative is. And the threat of impeachment, seeing how BHO has given and continues to give cause for impeachment, is a great tool to achieve impeachment and make BHO and the Dems defend. Being on the offense is generally much better than being on the defense.
Er… That should read “is a great tool to achieve initiative and make BHO and the Dems defend.”
Sorry.
Er… That should read “is a great tool to achieve initiative and make BHO and the Dems defend.”
Sorry.
@Steve,
Your rebuttal really doesn’t get at any of the strategic points I was making, and risks getting stuck in tactical quagmire.
As you read Clausewitz, defending your home turf may not be a bad position.
@Steve,
Your rebuttal really doesn’t get at any of the strategic points I was making, and risks getting stuck in tactical quagmire.
As you read Clausewitz, defending your home turf may not be a bad position.
The Republicans are going to make very significant gains this year. I’ll be quite surprised if they don’t take the House. There will no longer be anything approaching a filibuster proof majority in the Senate for the Democrats, at the very least.
Obama is causing a preference cascade away from Leftism that is going to leave quite a few people in the chattering classes very surprised, confused, sad and frustrated this year.
That suits me right down to the ground.
A smart set of Republicans would use the power of subpoena to gather the evidence of corruption to perp walk as many Democrats as possible. It’s not as if there is any shortage of said evidence, these are Democrats after all, who get convicted of corruption at a three to one ratio versus Republicans.
The Republicans are going to make very significant gains this year. I’ll be quite surprised if they don’t take the House. There will no longer be anything approaching a filibuster proof majority in the Senate for the Democrats, at the very least.
Obama is causing a preference cascade away from Leftism that is going to leave quite a few people in the chattering classes very surprised, confused, sad and frustrated this year.
That suits me right down to the ground.
A smart set of Republicans would use the power of subpoena to gather the evidence of corruption to perp walk as many Democrats as possible. It’s not as if there is any shortage of said evidence, these are Democrats after all, who get convicted of corruption at a three to one ratio versus Republicans.
I agree Smitty, impeachment should indeed join birther theories in the annoying and counterproductive distraction pile.
I agree Smitty, impeachment should indeed join birther theories in the annoying and counterproductive distraction pile.
Randy,
You write:
“There will no longer be anything approaching a filibuster proof majority in the Senate for the Democrats, at the very least.”
On that you are almost certainly right.
And that bodes well for Obama’s re-election campaign.
Being able to credibly blame “not getting anything done” on the Republicans reinvigorates his support from the left (“progressives” who’ve been complaining that he’s not getting anything done with a majority of both houses of Congress in the Democrats’ pocket) and picks up votes for him from the “we just want good government, and no, we have no idea what that consists of” center.
As far as the “preference cascade away from leftism” goes, fantasies are nice but they don’t play as well in Peoria as you think they do.
Obama is just the slightest hair to the left of center — a little to the left of Bill Clinton, somewhat to the right of Richard Nixon (remember wage and price controls, the earned income credit, putting the final stake through the gold standard’s heart, and cuddling up with the Chicoms? That Richard Nixon?). Bush 44, essentially.
Randy,
You write:
“There will no longer be anything approaching a filibuster proof majority in the Senate for the Democrats, at the very least.”
On that you are almost certainly right.
And that bodes well for Obama’s re-election campaign.
Being able to credibly blame “not getting anything done” on the Republicans reinvigorates his support from the left (“progressives” who’ve been complaining that he’s not getting anything done with a majority of both houses of Congress in the Democrats’ pocket) and picks up votes for him from the “we just want good government, and no, we have no idea what that consists of” center.
As far as the “preference cascade away from leftism” goes, fantasies are nice but they don’t play as well in Peoria as you think they do.
Obama is just the slightest hair to the left of center — a little to the left of Bill Clinton, somewhat to the right of Richard Nixon (remember wage and price controls, the earned income credit, putting the final stake through the gold standard’s heart, and cuddling up with the Chicoms? That Richard Nixon?). Bush 44, essentially.
Sure, sure. Obama’s slightly left of center.
My eyes, they roll.
That horse laugh is all the rebuttal your idiotic argument deserves.
Obama will not be re-elected in 2012 unless the Republicans run another Crazy Cousin John. Cling to that one hope, because it’s all you’ve got. Not that it’s a very thin hope, I’ll be the first to admit. The Republican establishment has earned the sobriquet “The Stupid Party” many times over. They very well could play another round of “But it’s his turn!” in 2012, instead of actually playing to win.
It’s the only reason Clinton was re-elected, and it’s the only reason Obama was elected.
Sure, sure. Obama’s slightly left of center.
My eyes, they roll.
That horse laugh is all the rebuttal your idiotic argument deserves.
Obama will not be re-elected in 2012 unless the Republicans run another Crazy Cousin John. Cling to that one hope, because it’s all you’ve got. Not that it’s a very thin hope, I’ll be the first to admit. The Republican establishment has earned the sobriquet “The Stupid Party” many times over. They very well could play another round of “But it’s his turn!” in 2012, instead of actually playing to win.
It’s the only reason Clinton was re-elected, and it’s the only reason Obama was elected.
As for the preference cascade, well, you clearly don’t understand the reference. Inside baseball political discussions aren’t what moves politics, any more than the commentary in the media booth moves the numbers on the scoreboard.
Judging by the poll numbers from Peoria, I’d say you’re whistling past the graveyard on this one.
As for the preference cascade, well, you clearly don’t understand the reference. Inside baseball political discussions aren’t what moves politics, any more than the commentary in the media booth moves the numbers on the scoreboard.
Judging by the poll numbers from Peoria, I’d say you’re whistling past the graveyard on this one.
[…] Stacy McCain is exactly right on the impeachment bit. […]
Two words: armed insurrection.