The New Republic - "Scandal TBD: The coming impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama" - DLC Article

[TomCADem]

Here is the "centrist" The New Republic's article promoting the upcoming impeachment of President Obama. I guess if the so-called "centrist" The New Republic could support the Iraq war, why not promote the impeachment of another Democratic president for some TBD offense. While the magazine is correct that Republicans in the House would happily impeach President Obama over anything, shouldn't the focus be on how incredibly dangerous and radical this idea is?

Instead, the article is downright breezy about the prospect of impeachment.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/78198/republicans-impeach-obama

Hear me now and believe me later: If Republicans win and maintain control of the House of Representatives, they are going to impeach President Obama. They won’t do it right away. And they won’t succeed in removing Obama. (You need 67 Senate votes.) But if Obama wins a second term, the House will vote to impeach him before he leaves office.

Wait, you say. What will they impeach him over? You can always find something. Mini-scandals break out regularly in Washington. Last spring, the political press erupted in a frenzy over the news that the White House had floated a potential job to prospective Senate candidate Joe Sestak. On a scale of one to 100, with one representing presidential jaywalking and 100 representing Watergate, the Sestak job offer probably rated about a 1.5. Yet it was enough that GOP Representative Darrell Issa called the incident an impeachable offense.

It is safe to say that Issa’s threshold of what constitutes an impeachable offense is not terribly high. As it happens, should Republicans win control of the House, Issa would bring his hair-trigger finger to the chairmanship of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The Sestak pseudo-scandal disappeared because there was no process to drive the story forward. Had Issa been running the Oversight Committee, it would have been the subject of hearings and subpoenas.

[msongs]

1. the reward fo the unending bipartisanship policy? nt

[704wipes]

2. oh hell we will be bipartisan and try to help them on it

nt

[inna]

15. no, you missed the point - "bipartisanship" sucks. it blows.

Obama tried it, it didn't work, he should've given up on it long time ago.

If he wanted, he could've effectively destroyed the Republicans. Now it's too late of course, thanks to Obama's "bipartisanship".

[TomCADem]

10. Huh? The Republicans did not filibuster something? Must have missed it.

[villager]

3. guess it's not "off the table" for Republicans?

Jeez, is that the dirt from falling down on the "high road" we're tasting in our mouths...?

[TexasObserver]

4. They impeached Clinton and they'll impeach Obama.

If there is a GOP majority in the House come 2011, it WILL happen.

[The Magistrate]

7. Indeed They Will, Sir, If They Get The Majority In The House

"What part of 'These people are rabid weasels out to fuck you!' can't the man understand?"

[TexasObserver]

9. We can't expect to win them over. We have to kick their asses.

The president did what we always warn candidates not to do: "Don't start believing your own press releases!"

He fell for his own campaign rhetoric about reaching out, when he should taken a page from LBJ and rammed through his legislation with arm twisting and deal making. Instead, he actually thought by being malleable, he would prove that bipartisanship could work. It can't. Not on important issues. That's the whole point of elections.

By allowing the GOP to obstruct, he allowed them to impede the very progress they can now condemn him for not achieving. When a party is in power, it is judged by RESULTS, not efforts.

[The Magistrate]

11. You Are One Hundred Percent Right, Sir

The only point to making an initial attempt at seeking co-operation was to make the point that 'you can't reason with these people....'
Once that was established, by about May, 2009 at the latest, the whole activity of the White House should have been simply the destruction of Republicans in the Senate and House.

[Toots]

22. When was the last time in History either Party held a super majority in both Houses & the Whitehouse

and yet failed to accomplish their stated goals? Their muddled down Health Insurance Reform was not what they campaigned on. Gitmo is still open and still torturing people, Troops are still in Iraq, we have officially invaded another country with our armed drones and are killing civilians left and right..Why do you suppose Democrats have fallen so far in all the polls, because they have been so successful? They surrendered before they were even sworn in.....and most Americans know that to be the truth....These last two years have been even more disappointing for me than the entire eight years of the Bush* Cabal. At least with them I expected such behavior..

[TomCADem]

13. With the Million$ Being Spent By Corporations, This Will Be Corporate Coup 2010!

You have a U.S. Chamber of Commerce emboldened by Citizens United. You have billionaire Meg Whitman spending over $140 million of her own money on the California gubernatorial election. You have Karl Rove laundering millions of secret contributions through American Crossroads. You have Rupert Murdoch's Fox News running like a 24/7 right wing attack ad against Democrats. You have oil companies like Valero sponsoring propositions like Proposition 23 in California to extend their energy monopoly.

Finally, with the corporate media working hand in hand with their corporate advertisers, you have publications gleefully reporting impeachment efforts as a normal politics, rather than just another step on the path to facism.

[The Magistrate]

14. You Know, Actually, Sir, the Man Who Wrote That Article Is Trying To Increase Democratic Turn-Out

It is a warning, not an endorsement.

[TexasObserver]

16. (Psst! Me, too.)

I'm a party animal.

Every October, even numbered years, for sure.

[RC]

5. Isn't there some Treason on the Republicans part in there some where?

trea·son ( tr¶“z…n) n. 1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. 2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. They still want revenge for Nixon

The country be damned.

Any democrat elected will be impeached by a Republican house. Get used to it.

[The Magistrate]

8. Hear Hear, Ma'am

A solid rightist friend of mine laid that out to me fifteen years ago, and he meant it....

[DefenseLawyer]

12. It's insulation for future war crimes.

The real result of the Clinton impeachment was that it made the public think of impeachment as a stupid, petty, political stunt.

[Ozymanithrax]

17. For Republicans politics is war and impeachment is just a tactic in that war.

For Republicans, impeachment has nothing to do with high crimes and misdemeanors. It will be used to cripple the administration.

[jillan]

18. Why the fuck do they even put this in print? By doing so they are giving credibility to a total

nutcase like Issa.

[TexasObserver]

19. Because everyone knows it is true.

It will be the Second Coming of Whitewater, and all the ridiculous aspects of the "investigation" which followed.

[KharmaTrain]

20. Cause It'll Make 'Em Rich

The beltway would love another impeachment...endless scandals and other juicy things to drive ratings and subscriptions. Especially now when newspapers aren't even worth of being birdcase liner. Some made their names and fortunes in the Clinton era and I'll bet there's nostalgia for those "good old days".

It's also a money pit for the GOTB. They made a fortune during the Clinton years turning his percieved scandals (he didn't hold a candle to the corruption during the Raygun and both boooosh eras) into fundraising gold. Issa know he'll become the darling of the wingnuts...dreaming of bigger and better and this is his ticket.

Unfortunately I see some on this side of the sandbox who would approve...

[JamesA1102]

21. It's not promoting impeachment, it is warning about it.

Wow! I thought these kinds of intellectually dishonest tactics were only used by FAUX News.

[sufrommich]

23. That doesn't read like "promoting" to me. It's reads the

opposite of what you're saying. If the republicans win, they will work tirelessly to delegitimize Obama, just like they did with Clinton.