Feel the impeachmentum

There are those who say I am paranoid to believe that House Republicans would impeach Obama if they too control of the House. But Jonathan Bernstein lays out a compelling case that Republicans will indeed impeach if given the opportunity:

I’ve been asking for guesses about when the first impeachment resolution will be filed in the House (leave your prediction here). To be fair, I’ve already been wrong about one thing — I predicted that Michele Bachmann would have introduced a resolution by now (actually, I predicted April 15). So perhaps I’m just as much of an alarmist as those Republicans who believed that a Pelosi-led House would impeach George W. Bush in 2007. Perhaps! But I don’t think so. In fact, impeachment talk moved yesterday from Tea Party rallies to at least one Republican Member of the House, Darrell Issa. And Issa’s not an obscure backbencher; he’s the ranking Republican on Oversight and Government Reform, and he also sits on the Judiciary Committee.

The incentives all run to impeachment, as far as I can tell. The leaders of such an effort would find it easy to cash in (literally, I mean) with books and appearances on the conservative lecture circuit. It’s hard to believe that Rush, Beck and the rest of the gang wouldn’t be tripping over each other to wear the crown of the Host Who Brought Down the socialist gangster president. And we’ve seen the ability, or I should say the lack thereof, of rank-and-file GOP pols to stand up to the talk show yakkers. Besides, it’s not as if a new Republican majority would have a full agenda of legislative items to pass, and what they did have would face an Obama veto (and most likely death in the Senate at any rate). Against all that is the collective preference of the Republican Party not to have a reputation as a pack of loons, but that doesn’t seem to be much of a constraint in practice. Of course, also against impeachment is the lack of a serious offense by the president, but I don’t see that as a major impediment — if offering a job to a potential Senate candidate is an impeachable offense (and see Jonathan Chait if you think it really is), then they’ll have no trouble at all coming up with something.

FWIW, it doesn’t seem that likely that Republicans will take over the House. But if they do, the question won’t be whether or not they begin impeachment hearings, it will be whether or not the Firebag crowd supports impeachment too.

177 replies
  1. 1
    NobodySpecial says:

    But if they do, the question won’t be whether or not they begin impeachment hearings, it will be whether or not the Firebag crowd supports impeachment too.

    Nice bridge! How’s it do at keeping out rain?

  2. 2
    nenabeans says:

    the house gopers would rather impeach than govern. They never really work to create and implement policy. They would be fired in the private sector.

  3. 3
    DougJ says:

    @NobodySpecial:

    No, I’m really curious about this.

  4. 4
    Paul in KY says:

    Bring it the fuck on. Cause I’m quite sure Pres. Obama doesn’t want to be thrown in that briar patch.

    TV of Michelle Bachmann screeching out her ‘reasons’ for impeachment (on national TV and with her bug eyes) can only make the Repubs look even more unhinged than they are (I’m assuming there is still some slack in their travel to the wingularity).

  5. 5
    Mike Kay says:

    well, if they couldn’t impeach bush, they’d settle for impeaching the black george bush.

  6. 6

    …it will be whether or not the Firebag crowd supports impeachment too.

    Oh boy. Having a light traffic day?

    If that scenario happens… an Obama impeachment on crass political grounds that’s supported by FDL… I think I’d just have to quit the internet.

  7. 7
    Derek says:

    For what would they impeach him?

  8. 8
    bob h says:

    I would put the chances of impeachment at 100%, on the grounds of “socialism” and foreign birth. Of course, it will go nowhere, but they would do it.

  9. 9
    Mumphrey says:

    @Derek:

    To quote Dirty Harry Callahan in Magnum Force, they’d impeach Obama “for stepping on a crack in the sidewalk.”

  10. 10
    DougJ says:

    @Derek:

    SetakGate, iPodGate, RetardedGate, SoshulismGate. They’ll find something.

  11. 11
    Jrod says:

    Go for it, Repugs! Nothing could be better for your electoral chances than making it plain that you’ll drum up any excuse to impeach a Democratic president. Never mind the polls, real Americans see the Demoncrat party as an evil force, and real Americans must be the majority of the nation, I mean it’s right in the name!

    Never mind that it looks like a cliff coming up. That’s just the LIEberal media brainwashing you. There are actually gogo dancers and champagne over the horizon.

  12. 12
    jeffreyw says:

    Impeach a ham sammich in a NY minute, you betcha.

  13. 13
    Cat Lady says:

    @Derek:

    Secret muslim kenyan usurpin’ without a long form birth certificate. Also.

  14. 14
    BTD says:

    Ah, the firebaggers.

    You guys are addicted to them.

  15. 15
    BTD says:

    @DougJ:

    You really think so? I think the chances are close to zero myself. I figured you just wanted to write firebagger.

  16. 16
  17. 17
    ThatPirateGuy says:

    Anyone remember what happened to Clinton’s Approval ratings after the impeachment?

    Remember what happened to the republican’s approval ratings?

    Exactly.

  18. 18
    jeffreyw says:

    @BTD: Internet troll is a step up from the run of the mill comment troll. Also.

  19. 19
    DougJ says:

    @BTD:

    Would you support impeaching Obama, hypothetically? Let’s say they came up with a not completely crazy case. I’m curious.

    I’m guessing no, of course.

    (EDIT: But I honestly believe, that if they came up with a not completely crazy (but still quite crazy) case, it’s 50-50 she-who-shall-not-be-named would support it.)

  20. 20
    The Moar You Know says:

    But if they do, the question won’t be whether or not they begin impeachment hearings, it will be whether or not the Firebag crowd supports impeachment too.

    What the Firebag crowd wants is irrelevant, they will do what they are told to do. And People’s Temple High Priestess Jane certainly will support impeachment.

    And the kool-aid drinkers will happily follow along.

    However, I’m not worried – the chances of the Republicans getting the House back are minimal.

  21. 21
    BTD says:

    @jeffreyw:

    You calling this post trolling? I wouldn’t go that far.

    It is clearly intended to provoke of course.

  22. 22
    NobodySpecial says:

    @DougJ:

    You really must think we’re all twelve, don’t you?

  23. 23
    ruemara says:

    @Derek:

    The ultra tan, a good jump shot, Bo, offering health care to the masses, you know, soshulizm

  24. 24
    DougJ says:

    @NobodySpecial:

    No, but I think that supporting impeachment would be a good way for certain Firebaggers to get on tv. So I think they would do it, yes.

  25. 25
    Mike Kay says:

    Anyone know if glenn has been worked up about sestek?

    I could see glenn goin all absolutist and supporting impeachment and what ever he says carries a lot of weight with the firebaggers.

  26. 26
    Derek says:

    @DougJ:

    I thought you said “SteakGate” and I was like, “…what?”

  27. 27
    Corner Stone says:

    @BTD:

    I figured you just wanted to write firebagger.

    Ding! Ding! Ding!

  28. 28
    ruemara says:

    @DougJ:

    Which is sorta like being 12 but without zits.

    Also, too. mmmmsteak.

  29. 29
    feebog says:

    First, Republicans are not going to take over the House. They may make some modest gains, but I don’t know why Dems are even buying into that meme. Republicans need to flip 39 seat houses to gain control. Best case, if the election were held today they would take about 20 to 25 seats. But thats today, not November. If the economy continues to improve, you can shave off a seat or two each month between now and November.

    Second, I’m not so sure that even the Boner is so stupid as to bring an impeachment resolution to the house floor with no sound reason for impeachment. Lets remember that 2012 is going to be a Presidential year election, along with everyone in the House. That means a lot more voters coming to the polls, many of them Obama supporters who did not vote in the mid-term elections.

    If the Republicans want to ensure that they lose the House in 2012 (assuming they have a shot in 2010), the surest way is to piss off all those Obama supporters by bringing a frivolous impeachment resolution to the floor.

  30. 30
    Mike Kay says:

    @DougJ: Heh!

  31. 31
    Corner Stone says:

    @DougJ: HA!

  32. 32
    Tonal Crow says:

    But if they do, the question won’t be whether or not they begin impeachment hearings, it will be whether or not the Firebag crowd supports impeachment too.

    That shtick is so far past its expiration date that it’s growing mold.

  33. 33
    Brian J says:

    He’s certainly done nothing remotely impeachable, and as stupid and feckless as people like Boehner and Cantor are, I think they realize this, too. I also imagine that those who are donating to particular candidates, like the financial industry, would warn them about taking this nonsense too far, well before it became clear they might take over the House. So while I don’t doubt there are those would try, I feel as if there are still enough people with enough maturity in the Republican party and in high up positions in big industries to ever let this advance beyond speculation.

  34. 34
    Corner Stone says:

    Rand Paul, then Sestak nothing, then House impeachment.

    You guys got nothing eh?

    ETA – I mean Hell, I expect the next one to be about the Catholic Church. Or maybe Greenwald. Or Greenwald v. the Catholic Church.

    Rock n Roll or Rap?
    Charmin vs Generic toilet paper?
    Tupac or B.I.G.?

  35. 35
    Mike Kay says:

    @NobodySpecial:
    I just don’t get why the firebaggers and PUMAs are so sensitive. They remind me of Palin, they can dish it out, but then they run behind their hastily constructed 14 foot hillbilly fence.

  36. 36
    BTD says:

    @DougJ:

    IF they come up with an impeachable offense, which is an impossibility really (Obama is not going to get caught in some personal transgression, which is what the Beltway thinks is impeachable, as opposed to actual impeachable offenses such as deliberately violating the law, as Bush 43 did), I would not venture to guess what Jane Hamsher would do (there, I said her name).

    But your premise seemed to be more along the lines of a Clinton-type impeachment. I feel confident Jane Hamsher would not support that.

    If you are asking what I would support, I did not support the impeachment of Bush, even though he committed real impeachable offenses (violating FISA and the laws against torture, ther Iraq War was completely lawful under US law, international law, not so much.) I supported censure.

    I can not imagine a scenario where I would support impeachment of Obama. Whether I agree with his policies or not (and on foreign policy and most domestic policy, I do, though I wish he would have been bolder) they clearly are lawful.

    I am not a believer in impeaching over policy or political differences. Even though impeachment is ultimately a political act.

    I think this post is actually illustrative of a way criticism of a President can be marginalized.

    It is clearly a shot a Jane Hamsher, but rather than address whatever positions she is taking (I’m not sure if she has committed a new “outrage” or not), you ask a rather silly question.

    Or perhaps not. Maybe you think it is a pertinent question. I don’t agree.

  37. 37
    Mike Kay says:

    @Corner Stone: and yet, your still here, which means, you’re less than nothing (in addition to being a homophobe).

  38. 38
  39. 39
    Derek says:

    @ThatPirateGuy:

    Indeed. During the trial, 73% approval! Tied with Reagan and FDR for highest approval rating for a departing president as well, when he was leaving office.

  40. 40
    Asshole says:

    Impeach the Kenyan!

    Free the Landrieu Four!

    Moonshine and hard tack for every real white American!

  41. 41
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Brian J:

    He’s certainly done nothing remotely impeachable, and as stupid and feckless as people like Boehner and Cantor are, I think they realize this, too.

    Yeah, but Issa is one dumb motherfucker (How much did he spend to put Arnold in the gov’s mansion?), Bachman, the King twins, Louie Goehmert and whichever of those nitwit junior chickenhawks is still in office (McHenry and Putnam)… They think RedState is the ‘center’, kinda like Firebaggers (yeah, I’m just baiting) think the left blogoshpere is the whole country. I don’t know that Boehner and Cantor can control them.
    ETA: not that I think they can push through impeachment– I don’t think they’re going to take the House–but those I named are dumb enough to try to use impeachment as a platform and take the party off-message and shoot themselves in the foot as a party.

  42. 42
    NobodySpecial says:

    @DougJ:

    If that were the case, they could get on tv NOW by saying it. Why not now, if six months from now it’s so obvious? They could be the ‘even the liberal X’ in the sentence ‘even the liberal X thinks Obama needs to be impeached.’

    No, we know the deal. You wanted some red meat to throw to the ‘base’ and show that you’re a Serious Person. Gotcha.

  43. 43
    schrodinger's cat says:

    @Corner Stone: Tunch vs Basement Cat

  44. 44
    El Cid says:

    Hell, I don’t think it’s unlikely at all that the lunatic Khmer Republicans would aim to impeach Obama — I mean, assuming they restrain themselves to such orderly procedures.

    I think that objectively, though, ‘firebagger’ / PUMA type support of such moves would matter almost zero, outside blogworld.

  45. 45
  46. 46
    Legalize says:

    Impeachment would shoot Obama’s approval rating up about 10 points, and guarantee him reelection. GOPers would raise money from the rubes, but get wiped out in 2012, thereby giving Obama momentum to do virtually whatever he wanted in his second term. I don’t think they’ll impeach – but not ’cause they don’t really really really want to.

  47. 47
    Mike Kay says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    that’s a very good point. normal republicans like bob michel and bob dole wouldn’t impeach obama over horse trading, but these aren’t normal republicans. Not even boenher is normal. when he first came to town, he used to wear a garbage bag over his head when he would speak from the House floor to signify his “embarrassment” to be seen in the same room with Dan Rostenkowski.

  48. 48

    @jeffreyw:

    Fortunately today I’ve re-armed. I see your sammich and raise you an order of roast chicken and root veggies. . .

    And of course they’ll try to impeach. My wingnut colleagues have been raving about impeachment since before the Health Care battle. Hell, since Inauguration Day.

  49. 49
    El Cid says:

    Hell with ‘firebaggers’, the question would be would Joe Lieberman support impeachment of Obama — and I bet he would.

  50. 50
    jl says:

    The only case for impeachment that is not stone cold crazy, and that would have even the very remotest chance of gaining FDL/GG support would be that Obama is following some Bush II (anti) civil liberty policies too closely in the area of national security. Would a House GOP leadership want to make that case? I doubt it, but what do I know?

    Would a House GOP leadership want to impeach Obama, who is far mor popular than they are with the public on the basis of crazy nonsense? Who knows?

  51. 51
    KCinDC says:

    @Mike Kay, Boehner wasn’t embarrassed to hand out campaign checks from tobacco companies on the floor of Congress, though. There are limits to honor.

  52. 52
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Mike Kay:

    Not even boenher is normal. when he first came to town, he used to wear a garbage bag over his head when he would speak from the House floor to signify

    Ho. Lee. Crap. No wonder Broder takes these people seriously as the real adults in Washington/eyeroll. Was this before or after he passed out checks to fellow members on the floor as a favor to a tobacco industry lobbyist?

  53. 53
    Brian J says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    I’ll admit, I know next to nothing about procedure of either House of congress, but aren’t there ample ways of letting these clowns introduce whatever nonsensical garbage they want, while actually having little affect on anything but the progress of other legislation?

  54. 54
    Svensker says:

    @NobodySpecial:

    You really must think we’re all twelve, don’t you?

    Yes, but who’s Judas?

  55. 55

    @Brian J: What’s your point? Dubya and Turdblossom knew that the future of the GOP rested on securing the Hispanic vote, and look how that’s turned out for them. The only math Rove ever was right about and the Teabaggers threw it all away.

  56. 56
    slippy says:

    @Mike Kay:

    he used to wear a garbage bag over his head when he would speak from the House floor to signify

    Oooh! Ooh! I can think of what it signifies! (raises hand) Call on me!

  57. 57
    Church Lady says:

    I must have missed that headline about Obama getting a blowjob from an intern…….

    Doug, are you joining the tinfoil hat brigad?. Lets say we all live in the land of what is, rather than what if. Encouraging this kind of shit is what I thought you spent so much time railing at the press about.

  58. 58
    Mike Kay says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: 1992-1994. as you can imagine, he stopped the jr high school theatrics once they took power.

  59. 59
    Mike Kay says:

    @Church Lady:

    I must have missed that headline about Obama getting a blowjob from an intern…….

    I hope this time the intern is hot.

    I mean, what was up with clinton and ugly chicks (paula jones, et al.).

  60. 60
    Mike in NC says:

    Hell with ‘firebaggers’, the question would be would Joe Lieberman support impeachment of Obama—and I bet he would.

    Of course, but he’d make the announcement with a sad face and as a favor for his BFF McCain.

  61. 61
    Mike Kay says:

    @slippy: Slippy in the 2nd row, you had your arm raised.

  62. 62
    Keith G says:

    This thread may be an impeachable offense.

  63. 63
    Brian J says:

    @Mike Kay:

    Where you hear this? I don’t mean to seem like I’m doubting you. I’m just hoping you can provide me with a good link.

    You know, a long time ago, back when AOL was still the big thing, I remember coming across a site that described all sorts of scandals associated with all sorts of politicians with national profiles. Most of them, I think, were Republicans, but there were a few Democrats, probably Clinton and Trafficant. It was here I first learned of such things like Dan Burton’s incredible forensic skills–i.e. using a duct taped watermelon as a stand in for Vince Foster’s head. I really, really wish I remembered what this link was.

  64. 64
    mnpundit says:

    And what has Obama got for pissing off his liberal base? Not a damn thing.

  65. 65
    Corner Stone says:

    @BTD:

    what Jane Hamsher would do (there, I said her name).

    Make sure you are no where near a mirror in case you say it two more times.
    She’s pure evil you know. And more powerful than a top hat.

  66. 66
    Corner Stone says:

    @Mike Kay: Oh Mike Stuck. You are a treasure indeed.

  67. 67
    Brian J says:

    @Mike Kay:

    I wonder if Michelle Obama keeps an eye on this lady who happens to work in the White House.

    And yes, this response was just an excuse to post that picture. That sort of frilly underwear doesn’t usually do it for me, but she wears it so well.

  68. 68
    Corner Stone says:

    @Asshole: I’m a big fan of the ‘Shine. Not so much of the hardtack.

  69. 69
    Cat Lady says:

    @KCinDC:

    That tweet from Mike “not all violations of laws are crimes” and defender of warrantless wiretapping Mukasey is rich. Shouldn’t he be off fainting while wanking somewhere? All of Bush’s lying lawyers should just stay under whatever rocks they’ve slivered under. Asshole.

  70. 70
    MikeJ says:

    @mnpundit: The liberal “base” is like the conservative base. There’s nothing he could do that wouldn’t piss them off, so fuck ém.

  71. 71
    robertdsc says:

    I mean, what was up with clinton and ugly chicks

    LOL. I never thought Monica Lewinsky was ugly.

  72. 72
    Steve says:

    I think BTD is right, as I often do. The Jane Hamshers of the Left offer a target-rich environment and this post was basically a cheap shot in that direction.

  73. 73
    Brian J says:

    @Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle:

    Assuming you meant to respond to me, my point is that an impeachment proceeding against Obama would the ultimate waste of time. There’s virtually nothing that he’s done wrong, and any sensible person knows this. I bet there are enough people left who have enough influence over the Republican party to let sanity reign, just for a few moments, so that nothing more than a few pleasing sound bites to the base will come of this.

  74. 74
    Corner Stone says:

    Damn DougJ. When you’ve lost Church Lady….aren’t you pretty much done at that point?

  75. 75
    Mnemosyne says:

    @El Cid:

    Hell with ‘firebaggers’, the question would be would Joe Lieberman support impeachment of Obama—and I bet he would.

    Actually, that’s the one thing that would guarantee Jane’s support against impeachment. Lieberman being allowed to veto things in the healthcare bill was a big part of what drove her insane during that fight (and Lieberman knew it — he really does hate her right back).

    If Obama made a big show of throwing Lieberman out of the party, that would win her back for good.

  76. 76
    LikeableInMyOwnWay says:

    The impeachment thing is just about making shit up.

    Sort of like this thread.

    How do we impeach pundits, and bloggers?

  77. 77
    Mike Kay says:

    @Steve: so. if the firebaggers can dish it out (including cheap shots), then they should be able to take it.

  78. 78
    Corner Stone says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    Tunch vs Basement Cat

    I would be kicking myself if it was anatomically possible.
    How could I have glossed over that?
    Shit.

  79. 79
    Mike Kay says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    If Obama made a big show of throwing Lieberman out of the party, that would win her back for good.

    If he did that, she’d probably blow him.

  80. 80
    Mike Kay says:

    @mnpundit:

    And what has Obama got for pissing off his liberal base? Not a damn thing.

    I had no idea they had wifi at creedmoor..

  81. 81
    cleek says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    If Obama made a big show of throwing Lieberman out of the party, that would win her back for good.

    and if Obama made Lieberman wear blackface on his way out the door, she’d probably die a little death…

  82. 82
    Mike Kay says:

    @Brian J: I know it from first hand experience, working for the House in the early 90s. That how he got in the leadership. When Newt took over he personally elevated him to stick it to the democrats who all loathed boehner.

    Come to think of it, considering his ridiculous orange tan, he looked better with a sack over his head.

  83. 83
  84. 84
    Egypt Steve says:

    Obama does have a secret weapon, if he has the guts to use it. He can always turn loose a special prosecutor on Bush-era crimes. Torture aside, there are slam-dunk indictments and probable felony convictions all the way up to the Oval Office for FISA violations. All Obama has to do is say the word. Maybe the whole “look forward, not backward” thing was intended from the jump as impeachment insurance. If the Rethugs reneg, he can go nuclear — if he dares!

  85. 85
    Mike Kay says:

    @robertdsc:

    LOL. I never thought Monica Lewinsky was ugly.

    Well, she was chubby. Let’s face it she had an oral fixation. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

  86. 86
    Corner Stone says:

    @DougJ:

    No, I’m really curious about this.

    Shit. No you aren’t.

  87. 87
    Michael says:

    @robertdsc:

    I never thought Monica Lewinsky was ugly.

    Same here. Totally tappable.

  88. 88
    Corner Stone says:

    @Mike Kay:

    I know it from first hand experience, working for the House in the early 90s.

    The only “House” you worked for was the frat house in the college town you were born in, as the laundry boy and general gofer.

  89. 89
    DougJ says:

    @LikeableInMyOwnWay:

    How do we impeach pundits, and bloggers?

    That’s a very good question. I’ve given a lot of thought in the past, but I’ve never come up with a good answer.

  90. 90
    ruemara says:

    @Mike Kay:

    HA! queens-ite! I went to HS near there. Every so often, lockdown. Why? Creedmore sent a visitor>

  91. 91
    Mike Kay says:

    @Corner Stone: make sure you wear you’re helmet, trig. you don’t want to go bumping into the new 14 foot fence.

  92. 92
    WereBear says:

    @Mike Kay: That’s how he got in the leadership. When Newt took over he personally elevated him to stick it to the democrats who all loathed boehner.

    With this kind of petty crap now looking at its third decade, some of ya’ll are making fun of DougJ for bringing up such an “absurd” premise?

    Rush “Scented Candles & Sex Tourism” Limbaugh is running their party. Their former Vice Presidential candidate is posting a beer built spite fence on her Facebook page. Their latest Great Pale Hope has crashed and burned as too crazy for the Tea Party.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if they all wore ducks on their heads at the next rally.

    At this point I think what passes for smart people in the GOP are not even trying to win elections this cycle. It’s gonna look like they are, but their plan is to come up with as many outrageous accusations as they can, milk the rabid donors right down to the baby’s diaper money, spend as little as possible on a crap campaign, and hunker down.

  93. 93
    DougJ says:

    @BTD:

    But your premise seemed to be more along the lines of a Clinton-type impeachment. I feel confident Jane Hamsher would not support that.

    I don’t agree. I’m not trying to be a smart ass here.

    Thanks for your thoughtful answer, in any case.

  94. 94
    WereBear says:

    @Egypt Steve: If the Rethugs reneg, he can go nuclear—if he dares!

    Intriguing concept! Newsletter!

  95. 95
    danimal says:

    Good lord, if I see another comment relying on the good faith and common sense of the Republican leadership, I’m going to puke. Where have y’all been for the past several years?

    The GOP leadership won’t want impeachment, but they’ll be compelled to follow through once an ambitious backbencher (my money’s on Bachmann) goes on a crusade, backed by the Wurlitzer. No one, literally no one, in the GOP will let little things like rationality, or civility, or good sense, stop them from backing impeachment once Limbaugh, Beck and Palin start the ball rolling.

    And the firebagger snark is more accurate than the FDL crowd seems to acknowledge. Also, too.

  96. 96
    Hal says:

    Politico’s comments section on this is pretty hilarious. I love it when people who never had any issue with anything the Bush admin did matter of factly say; “of course Obama should be impeached, why, this kind of thing is illegal!!”

    ZOMG!

    PS, slightly off topic, but why do so many of Politico’s posters declare themselves Independent or N/A under party affiliation when they do nothing but tow the Republican Party line?

  97. 97
    Felanius Kootea (formerly Salt and freshly ground black people) says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Tupac or B.I.G.?

    Oh no you didn’t.

  98. 98
    Morbo says:

    @Hal: Because the Republicans are too liberal for them.

  99. 99

    @jeffreyw:

    Hmmph. If I hadn’t overcooked my pastrami, and if those birds hadn’t eaten my tomatoes yesterday, I might have another entry. . . you win again.

  100. 100
    Corner Stone says:

    @Mike Kay: We all know you’re a little torn up about your mentor leaving you here all alone.
    I wrote a song to help you get through this, and I hope it gives you a little peace at night. Here’s a little verse of it:

    But I say, “Daddy I’m so afraid
    How will I go on – with you gone this way
    How can I come up – with a song to say, “I love you.”

    “That’s my job, that’s what I do
    Ev’rything I do is because of you
    To keep you safe with me …
    That’s my job, you see.”

    “Ev’rything I do is because of you
    To keep you safe with me.”

  101. 101
    AnotherBruce says:

    why do so many of Politico’s posters declare themselves Independent or N/A under party affiliation when they do nothing but tow the Republican Party line?

    For the same reason angry old white people consider themselves part of the “Tea Party”. They’re independent thinkers, doncha know?

  102. 102
    Mike Kay says:

    @Corner Stone: all this stalking, I’m thinking you’re a self-hating gay homophobe.

  103. 103
    El Cid says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    Actually, that’s the one thing that would guarantee Jane’s support against impeachment.

    Interesting.

  104. 104
    bobbob says:

    The case against (Obama) was open and shut. The only thing missing was something to charge him with. — from Catch-22

  105. 105
    artem1s says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    As I recall Issa was the bag man when they wanted to get rid of Grey Davis in CA. He’s tenacious as sh*t and figured out how to use a weak recall law to his advantage. The GOP may have screwed him out of the CA governators mansion but I’m betting he’d be willing to roll those dice again if it meant getting to be Speaker. Oh and the governator is term limited out, isn’t he? or maybe the White House. he won’t remember what the lewinski impeachment trial cost Newt until it is too late.

    Oh and maybe the Clenis approval ratings went up, but it still cost Gore the election and the country got saddled with 8 years of shrub to boot.

  106. 106
    celticdragonchick says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Something about you just makes me vaguely nauseous.

    Rather like watching a dog tear at a fly-blown piece of road kill on a sweltering August afternoon.

  107. 107
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    Lieberman being allowed to veto things in the healthcare bill was a big part of what drove her insane during that fight (and Lieberman knew it—he really does hate her right back).

    I never thought of that, though I suspect Hamsher is pretty far down on Lieberman’s revenge list, after John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson… Who do you think Scummy Joe hates more, Jane Hamsher for trying to get him voted out? Or Bill Clinton the dirty sex man for saving his ass?

    I like to compare Bill Clinton bailing out Lieberman to Palin endorsing McCain against Hayworth. Two greater political scenes of mutual loathing and passive-aggressive revenge are tough to imagine.

  108. 108

    It wouldn’t surprise me. Both groups are 99.9% gibbering idiots and .01% people uneasily eyeing the door and wondering if they’ll be torn to shreds if they make a break for it.

    Here’s hoping Michelle Barkingmadmann does lead the charge.

  109. 109
    Steve says:

    @artem1s: Not to be picky, but I think the bag man is the person who collects the money, not the person who pays it. Not having watched the Sopranos, I don’t know what the technical term is for someone who underwrites a shady operation the way Issa bankrolled the Davis recall.

  110. 110
    celticdragonchick says:

    @danimal:

    Good lord, if I see another comment relying on the good faith and common sense of the Republican leadership, I’m going to puke. Where have y’all been for the past several years?

    That.

  111. 111
    celticdragonchick says:

    @Steve:

    @artem1s: Not to be technical, but I think the bag man is the person who collects the money, not the person who pays it. Not having watched the Sopranos, I don’t know what the technical term is for someone who underwrites a shady operation the way Issa bankrolled the Davis recall.

    I think we are looking for “Hatchet Man”

    During the Watergate scandal, the term “hatchet man” was used to refer to a trusted and particularly orthodox subordinate tasked by his employer with destroying a political opponent by any means necessary. Charles Colson was known as a hatchet man for President Richard Nixon, as was HR Haldeman, who proudly described himself as “Richard Nixon’s ‘son of a bitch'”. This use of the term has since become commonplace for anyone who is tasked with conducting distasteful, illegal, or unfair “dirty work” to protect the reputation or power of their employer.[3]

  112. 112
    AnotherBruce says:

    Oh and maybe the Clenis approval ratings went up, but it still cost Gore the election and the country got saddled with 8 years of shrub to boot.

    Only because Gore listened too closely to the Republicans and actually believed that Clinton would be a liability to his campaign. Clinton was then and still is as popular as hell and could have pushed Gore over the top if Clinton could have campaigned for him more actively.

    But in Gore’s defense, he’s not the only one who has been guilty of not utterly ignoring the Republicans when they whine.

  113. 113
    Corner Stone says:

    @celticdragonchick: After watching your pathetic performance the other day when everyone under the sun beat you down for your pathetic nonsensical responses here?
    I’ll take that as a compliment.

    Oh shit? What’s that!? Muslim cartoons in Reason!

    Call CDC, she/it will answer the call!

  114. 114
    The Other Chuck says:

    @Hal:

    Because they’re ashamed to be Republicans.

    There was a survey a while back on how many Republican candidate campaign websites actually mentioned the word “Republican” anywhere on the page, vs the Dem opponents. The ratio was unbelievably skewed, showing the Republican candidates running away in droves from the name, and if anything has probably become even more lopsided since then.

  115. 115
    celticdragonchick says:

    @Corner Stone:

    I have had my share of disagreements with Mike Kay, but I agree with him here. You look like a stalker.

    Fuck off, sicko.

    Also, the correct pronoun is “she” and you knew that, so the “it” dig you got in exposes you for the worthless bigoted piece of shit you are.

  116. 116
    Corner Stone says:

    @celticdragonchick:

    I have had my share of disagreements with Mike Kay, but I agree with him here

    Enough said.

  117. 117

    No no no no no. Obama has been reaching across the aisle, compromising like crazy and watering down his own party’s proposals. Surely he has built up enough good will that the Rs would never ever think of impeaching him!

  118. 118
    Bob L says:

    You know the GOP as a lot of sound reasons not to impeach but considering the only way they can take control of the House is threw Tea Bagger rage they won’t have any choice but to impeach. What else could thew to but refuse to cooperate with Obama and attack him at every turn after that. Any attempt to govern will just bring down the Tea Bagger rage on them.

  119. 119
    BlizzardOfOz says:

    I know here at BJ it’s usually Party uber Alles, but yeah … to me transferring $27 trillion from the treasury to crooked bankers and foreign corporations is more than impeachable.

  120. 120
    angler says:

    firebaggers! got git em, git git!

  121. 121
    Shade Tail says:

    @celticdragonchick #115:

    It’s just a bitter asshole. Don’t waste your energy getting angry at it. The only thing it deserves is mockery.

  122. 122

    Anyone remember what happened to Clinton’s Approval ratings after the impeachment? Remember what happened to the republican’s approval ratings?

    That sure hurt them in the next few elections, didn’t it?

  123. 123
    celticdragonchick says:

    @Shade Tail:

    Agreed.

  124. 124
    Corner Stone says:

    @Shade Tail: Hmmm. I’ll concede to your infinite wisdom when PA voters choose Toomey over Sestak.

  125. 125
    Corner Stone says:

    @celticdragonchick: Speaking of mockery…

  126. 126
    WTF says:

    And why aren’t dozens of former Bush administration officials already in prison?

    Obama should be impeached for not prosecuting the crimes of his predecessor.

  127. 127
    Scamper says:

    Jane Hamsher would jump on any fucking impeachment bandwagon the Republicans offered. BTD’s fucknuttery aside, Hamsher would break both her fucking legs to get to lead an impeachment charge and would lick Beck’s boots for a 15-minute segment of screeching about how she warned us!

  128. 128

    What the Firebag crowd wants is irrelevant, they will do what they are told to do. And People’s Temple High Priestess Jane certainly will support impeachment. And the kool-aid drinkers will happily follow along.

    LOL. How many people on this board followed merrily along when they found out Obama ordered the assassination of an American citizen? “Hey, if my guy does it, it’s okay.”

  129. 129
    taylormattd says:

    @NobodySpecial: Give me a break. Quit pretending they haven’t already called for impeachment.

  130. 130
    taylormattd says:

    @AnotherBruce: Correction to both of you:

    Gore won.

  131. 131
    jl says:

    As for likelihood of such insanity as an attempt to impeach Obama, a commenter above said all the sane GOPers are hiding for awhile.

    If that is the case anything can happen.

    There is evidence that is the case.

    Hunstman more or less said that China was a very good place for him to be for a few years. I think a few sane GOP governors are burying themselves in state business.

    Semi-sane Arnold is out and about, but probably only because, due to birth certificate issues, he does not have immediate ambitions for national office (maybe Congress someday, but probably not).

    So, if the nuts are in charge, maybe DougJ’s odd interest is justified. But I cannot believe they are that insane and stupid. And I also think if the economy keeps improving, the GOP will not do nearly as well as they hope. And there is the emerging Batsh*t insane and clearly goofy to max GOP candidates in a general election issue, which grows larger everyday, which will not help them.

  132. 132
    taylormattd says:

    @BTD: Oops Armando, you popped in to defend your fellow PUMAs too soon.

    Read the rest of this very thread, and you will see arguments as to why Obama should be impeached now.

    Lol.

  133. 133
    Steve says:

    @Oscar Leroy:

    That sure hurt them in the next few elections, didn’t it?

    Well, of course it did. The Democrats gained seats in the House in both 1998 and 2000, even though it is extremely unusual for the President’s party to gain seats in the six-year midterm. Senate Democrats broke even in 1998, a great result for a midterm, and then gained 4 seats and took control of the chamber in 2000.

    By 2002 it’s safe to say that 9/11 started having a bigger impact on elections than the Clinton impeachment, but it’s hard to argue that the 1998 and 2000 results didn’t have something to do with the fact that the public generally opposed Republican impeachment efforts.

  134. 134
    taylormattd says:

    @El Cid:

    Lol!

    Hell with ‘firebaggers’, the question would be would Joe Lieberman support impeachment of Obama—and I bet he would.

    Then Joe and Jane can appear together on Morning Joe with a segment that starts “even liberal bloggers and Democratic Senators support . . . “

  135. 135
    BTD says:

    @taylormattd:

    Well, idiots abound.

    PUMAs and Obots.

    Different sides of the same coin.

  136. 136
    Citizen Alan says:

    @Oscar Leroy:

    Remember what happened to the republican’s approval ratings?

    That sure hurt them in the next few elections, didn’t it?

    I think you’ve got the impeachment and 9/11 mixed up there. Fuckwit George was sitting on a 28% approval rating the day before 9/11. Without the world’s biggest bloody shirt to wave, there’s no way he’d have gotten reelected in 2004.

  137. 137
    ThatPirateGuy says:

    @Oscar Leroy:

    How many people on this board followed merrily along when they found out Obama ordered the assassination of an American citizenIn a foriegn country surrounded by foreign fighters in a stronghold from whence he is providing support and coordination to terrorist attackers? “Hey, if my guy does it, it’s okay.”

    That is exactly the same as Obama deciding to shoot Gotti because everyone knows he is a mobster. No difference at all.

    Italics are my insert.

  138. 138
    jl says:

    Impeaching ex office holders is possible and I think in fact has been done in US history. And since I believe the only very remote possibility of gaining Hamsher/GG/angry lefty support is to impeach Obama on the basis of particular Bush II civil liberty policies that he is following too closely, I wonder whether any angry progressives would want to impeach Bush II, Cheney and Rumsfeld along with Obama, before they go along.

    The whole deal seems like three or four bridges too far for the House GOP and angry lefties to get together on any deal.

    I think this discussion is so far out into fantasy land, there is no profit to it unless someone writes it up and pitches to Hollywood.

    But I am writing up my treatment and pitch right now, and will copyright it, so you are all too late.

  139. 139
    Bob L says:

    @Steve: It was seen that way in ’98. Newt resigned from congress right after the election and the forty GOP representatives who pushed impeachment were mostly gone from Congress by 2001.

  140. 140
    LikeableInMyOwnWay says:

    @DougJ:

    I would like to start with the Washington Post editorial and op-ed writers. I want to see them all in jail.

    If you want to get that going, I will contribute to the effort.

    Next, I want Ron Christie deported. I don’t really care where.

  141. 141
    robertdsc says:

    There was a user-generated diary at FDL sometime in mid-2009 talking about impeachment over Obama’s (and Hillary’s) conduct in the Binyam Mohammed case with threats against the British government for revealing torture techniques.

    It didn’t get front page play but I do remember it appearing there.

  142. 142
    Midnight Marauder says:

    @jl:

    So, if the nuts are in charge, maybe DougJ’s odd interest is justified. But I cannot believe they are that insane and stupid.

    I keep seeing this and it has to be one of the craziest, most delusional statements I’ve come across in recent times. You don’t think the Republican Party is that insane and stupid? Do you mean the party that went to Wall Street and shameless begged them for money and support in exchange for blocking Financial Regulation? Are you talking about those paragons of rationality?

    I mean, honestly, who the fuck is going to step up to the plate and be the leader of the party who pulls them away from the abyss that is impeachment? Mitch McConnell? Jon Coryn? Mike Pence? Eric Cantor? John “Please, Oh Please, Let Me Be Speaker of The House” Boehner? Michael Steele? Newt Gingrich? Michele Bachmann? Jim DeMint? Steve King? Darrell Issa? Paul Ryan?

    Really, who the fuck is going to step into the Republican Party leadership vacuum and prevent these people from immolating themselves?

    Really? Who the fuck is going to do that?

  143. 143
    LikeableInMyOwnWay says:

    @LikeableInMyOwnWay:

    Okay, I do care where. I want to see Ron Christie sent to a place that has no cameras or microphones or computers. Or other people.

    Or plumbing.

  144. 144
    JohnR says:

    “..the lack of a serious offense by the president,..”

    Oh, let’s get real. Any offense is a “serious offense” to this crowd; they’ve already demonstrated repeatedly that there are no lengths of hypocrisy and imagination they won’t go to in the effort to bring down their enemies, and why not? If Fox is for them, who shall be against them? Over and over we’ve seen how it works: the accusation is made and then the echo chamber amplifies it. “If there’s smoke, there must be fire” is the general press attitude, and soon the lie becomes The Truth. I agree; impeachment is a ‘when’ not an ‘if’. Even if it fails, it will screw up the plans of the Godless Socialists and lead to the Glorious Return to Power of the Righteous.

  145. 145
    The Populist says:

    Impeach him over what? Shit, if they want to do this, we will work ever harder to get the dems back in congress with the agreement that ANY GOP that wins the white house risks being impeached.

    This is a dangerous fucking game these pricks are playing. They care not one whit about America if they were to go down this alley. They are obviously worried O will win in 2012 so they better get rid of him since they can’t beat him.

    Clowns.

  146. 146
    moops says:

    What a waste of time this was reading this long pointless troll post.

    I’m kinda regretting spending time here if it’s just going to be flamewars with other blogs.

  147. 147
    LikeableInMyOwnWay says:

    @moops:

    I’m kinda regretting spending time here if it’s just going to be flamewars with other blogs.

    It’s an acquired taste.

  148. 148

    […] I have to add, I agree with both Jonathan Berstein and DougJ: it making sense isn’t exactly a prerequisite for the Republicans to try to do something […]

  149. 149
    Derek says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    To be fair, Gore actually won the election.

  150. 150
    Lawnguylander says:

    @ruemara:

    Van Buren?

  151. 151
    JenJen says:

    What I hate the most about this post? Just how much it scares me, that’s what. DougJ has always been spot-on correct about this issue, y’all.

  152. 152
    SouthernDragon says:

    DougJ

    How come we don’t see ya at the Lake pimping your drivel?

  153. 153
    Brandon says:

    @artem1s: We need to forget about “Black Jimmy Carter” and impeachment. We should really be turning our attention to “Black Grey Davis” and recall. why is it that when Republicans lose power, they don’t bother trying to win it back through normal elections? The Tea Partiers and Republicans are trying to recall Menendez in NJ. That’s right, the recall is back. Teabaggers argue that the Constitution is silent on the question of a recall and therefore should be allowed to procede. Who wants to bet that an Obama “recall” will be next.

    Shit, considering how both Obama and Davis were made to look inept by energy company malfeasance as a result of deregulation, their plights are actually looking more similar than ever. Also too, they are both skinny.

  154. 154
    Elliott says:

    @NobodySpecial:

    spare me.

    how tiny you are.

  155. 155
    Elliott says:

    @NobodySpecial:
    clarification
    I was reacting to

    But if they do, the question won’t be whether or not they begin impeachment hearings, it will be whether or not the Firebag crowd supports impeachment too.

    I apologize NobodySpecial.

  156. 156
    cs says:

    @Oscar Leroy:

    The Democrats made decent gains in 1998 and managed to get a tie in the Senate in 2000 with gains in the House. Had 9/11 not happened, they would have probably regained the House in 2002 and probably could have ensured Bush would have lasted one term only.

    The impeachment did do some damage, at least to congressional Republicans, but terrorism + war was a massively lucky break for the Republicans, which caused most voters to quickly forget that unpleasantness.

  157. 157
    handy says:

    @Brandon:

    That Menendez recall thing is just completely psycho. The Teabaggers’ whole argument for the recall is “He supports Obama and votes like a Democrat.” I kid you not. That is their entire argument. This is just the first step of the whole “Let’s just ban for life from office everyone who disagrees with us” movement.

  158. 158
    The Populist says:

    @Brandon:

    Problem is the same crowd crowing about costs is going to waste HOW much recalling Obama?

    TO what end other than being sore losers? This is what the right called Dems who wanted Bush impeached for the very REAL crimes of treason (Plamegate), ineptitude (NOLA) and lies (IRAQ). Nobody impeached him and life moved on.

    Funny thing that Bushy, he didn’t even win election to office he was installed. Guess a recall could be challenged on that ground!

  159. 159
    The Populist says:

    @handy:

    So are they gonna be mad when left leaning independents and dems do the same to GOP candidates? Seems to me these idiots do not get the pandora’s box they keep opening on all these stupid, whiny points.

  160. 160
    The Raven says:

    The USA began an authoritarian period under W. Bush. Obama has continued some of those authoritarian policies that W. Bush began. Somehow I doubt that the impeachment of Obama by a Republican House is going to address those policies. What do you think, Doug?

  161. 161
    mclaren says:

    @Dougj:

    FWIW, it doesn’t seem that likely that Republicans will take over the House.

    It does in fact seem possible, with more than an even chance that it will happen.

    If you study the statistics, you discover a number of things.

    First, Democrats currently trail Republicans in the generic polls. That’s no surprise, since the party out of power typically gains seats in between presidential elections after a big electoral swing of the kind we had in 2008.

    What’s less obvious is the statistical fact that Democrats are trailing by significantly more than usual for these kinds of elections by historical comparison over the last 60 years. This suggests that Democrats are going to do worse than usual at the polls in 2010.

    Next, we have the statistical fact that Democrats tend to worse than Republicans in real elections than the generic elections would suggest. So although Demos trails Repubs by 7%, that gap is likely to widen in November 2010.

    Lastly, there’s the statistical fact that these kinds of gaps tend to widen between the time the initial generic poll is taken and the November elections.

    Nate Silver has done the math and run the statistics and he finds that the current 7-point Democratic gap translates to significantly wider gap in the November 2010 election:

    A 9-point loss in the House popular vote would translate into a projected 65-seat loss for Democrats. Or, if we adjust the Rasmussen poll to account for the fact that the Democrats’ performance in the popular vote tends to lag the generic ballot, it works out to a 12.4-point loss in the popular vote, which implies a loss of 79 seats!

    Generic ballot points toward possible 50+ seat loss for Democrats

    We’ve been hearing a great deal of smug complacency from liberals like DougJ, largely based on the incredible stupidity and insanity of the Republican party.

    Unfortuntely, incredible stupidity and insanity is no bar to electoral success, as Ronald Reagan’s landslide victories demonstrated.

    People like DougJ are likely to get the surprise of a lifetime in November 2010. Me, I expect the House to swing Republican, at which point we’ll descend into a morass of climate denalism, hearings about Obama’s birth certificate, and impeachment hearings, and it’ll be time for every sane person to sell hi/r assets and get the hell out of America before they start burning witches on the street corners.

  162. 162

    Of course the Republicans would impeach Obama. Hello??? Is anyone paying attention to Beck and Limbaugh and Fox News? Remember the Clinton Wars?

    It’s only a majority vote to impeach a sitting President. That’s very easy to pull off. And the GOP has the media empire – Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch – to keep the wheels turning indefinitely. The national media would cluck like brainless high school gossips – have you noticed how trivial and childish they’ve become?

    And the American public? Half won’t know and half won’t care. Nobody reads, nobody pays attention, nobody cares. As long as gas stays cheaper than milk and the sports bars are open, the peasants are content. You could impeach Obama for hiding space aliens on the moon, and with enough media propaganda, you’d get a majority of Americans to believe it.

    And let’s not forget that Republican ideology – government can never function – fits in perfectly with impeachement, which would grind the wheels of government to a complete halt. I would expect them to submit a cruel, Mr. Burns-style budget first, just to see if they can shove Obama around. After that, it’s Michelle Bachman and her impeachment proceedings in committee…..

    Make no bones about it, kids. If Republicans take the House, Obama gets impeached.

  163. 163
    Sheila says:

    @feebog: Just what I would have said, feebog.

  164. 164
    Ballon Juice Stands For Butt Job says:

    Fuck you and your childish asinine “Firebag” reference; what a piece of small mental shit you are.

  165. 165
    Corner Stone says:

    Elliott @NobodySpecial:

    spare me.

    how tiny you are.

    I thought for a second there this was about to get real fucking personal.
    Or really poor haiku.

  166. 166
    owlbear1 says:

    HaHa funny but you know, keeping the Democratic party from drifting even further to the right is hard work. Especially after so many Republicans have completely failed to even try to fix their party and just started calling themselves Democrats instead.

  167. 167
    Story of O says:

    Is it an impeachable offense to refuse to investigate credible evidence of war crimes and other legal violations of the previous administration?

  168. 168
    The Populist says:

    @daniel thomas macinnes:

    So they’d impeach him over a lie? Wow.

    If they are so confident in beating him, field a good candidate and take him out legitimately in 2012.

  169. 169
    rikyrah says:

    I would like to know…FOR WHAT?
    simple question.

    FOR WHAT?

  170. 170
    Jay Schiavone says:

    You guys should get together with Quentin Tarantino; he hates Jane Hamsher too. In any case, it totally doesn’t matter what FDL says about this speculated event. I am more curious to learn if Lieberman can restrain himself from piling on.

  171. 171
    Jay Schiavone says:

    @Story of O: Reagan signed treaties which obligate the US to prosecute any incidence of torture. Therefore, Obama is in violation of international law. However, republicans do not recognize that authority (even though it was their god who signed on in the first place). A quandary for normal people, complete cognitive dissonance is standard operating procedure for conservatives.

  172. 172
    Mike Kay says:

    @Jay Schiavone: what makes you say tarentino hates hamsher. yes, i know she optioned his script for natural born killers that was later turned into a film that was rewritten by oliver stone so much that tarentino took his name off the writing credit, but that happens all the time in hollywood, especially when you have a director who started out as a writer. some directers are former actors, former film editors, and even cinematographers. But the screenwriters turn directers (stone was an oscar winning screenwriter prior to becoming a director) just chop up original screenplays.

    but what i think is particularly hilarious, is how some people think hamsher should never be criticized, even though she criticizes everyone. in shorT: leaaaaaaaaaaaave Jaaaaaaaaaaaaane aaaaaaaaaalooooooooooooone!

  173. 173
  174. 174
    Sheila says:

    FDL: Wouldn’t a lake quench fire unless that lake is filled with toxic chemicals? Alas poor dog.

  175. 175
    Uloborus says:

    Not that anyone will see this, with me dropping back by so late after a busy week, but… this is the strangest thread I’ve ever seen here. It’s like ‘trolltrolltrolltrolltrolltroll’. Geez. Doug doesn’t like Hamsher. Lord knows she’s done things to legitimately piss him off. But this is bizarre. Every other post is someone wailing about it.

  176. 176
    par4 says:

    They could impeach him for impersonating a Republican and those charges would stick.

  177. 177

    […] If the Republicans take back the House, they will orchestrate an ongoing effort to investigate and impeach President Obama. In fact, impeachment talk moved yesterday from Tea Party rallies to at least one Republican Member […]

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] If the Republicans take back the House, they will orchestrate an ongoing effort to investigate and impeach President Obama. In fact, impeachment talk moved yesterday from Tea Party rallies to at least one Republican Member […]

  2. […] I have to add, I agree with both Jonathan Berstein and DougJ: it making sense isn’t exactly a prerequisite for the Republicans to try to do something […]

Comments are closed.