Obama’s third presidential election

Listening to NPR and watching MSNBC, and occasionally Fox “news” this last week, I am convinced that the 2014 mid-terms will be Obama’s third presidential election.

The teabaggers, who make up the main power block in the modern Republican party, aim to win the Senate and then impeach the President on any grounds they can think up.  They have been rather open about this, and they have repeatedly stated this to be their intention to anyone they think might support them.  I don’t think, given what I’ve been seeing and hearing, that I am writing hyperbole here.  Given the chance, they will remove this president from office by any means available to them.  Anyone who lives in a deep red state can tell you that these people are absolutely serious.

The moment they have enough Republicans in the Senate, they’ll introduce and pass articles of impeachment.  The standard for conviction by the Senate is simple majority  2/3rds majority (thanks Roger Moore.)  The country cannot count on some mythical moderate Republican in the Senate  voting to acquit.  And while I think that if they were to do that, they’d lose the middle for a generation, the damage will be done.  I’d also say that we can’t afford the distraction.  Even the useless House we have today is better than a House trying to impeach for whatever reason.

If there’s a Senate election in your state this year, you need to get directly involved, and if you can spare a dime or two, you need to donate to any endangered Dem and any viable Dem challenger.

215 replies
  1. 1
    Roger Moore says:

    The standard for conviction by the Senate is simple majority.

    2/3. Look it up before you get too flustered. There’s no way in hell the Republicans are getting Obama out of office by impeachment.

    ETA: The relevant section is Article 1, Section 3:

    The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

    There’s a reason they didn’t succeed with Clinton.

  2. 2
    humanoid.panda says:

    Actually, the standard for impeachment in the House is a simple majority. It’s two thirds in Senate.

  3. 3
    Baud says:

    The standard for conviction by the Senate is simple majority.

    It’s two-thirds. No chance. Rest of your post is spot on, however.

    ETA: As others have pointed out..

  4. 4
    Francisco The Man says:

    I think that conviction standard is incorrect.

  5. 5
    Corner Stone says:

    Thank you for this kind post, Mr. Grunt.

  6. 6
    catclub says:

    @Roger Moore: Maybe the standard in the House to bring impeachment charges is a majority.

  7. 7
    Lurking Canadian says:

    According to wikipedia, the Rs would have needed 67 votes to bounce Clinton. Has the rule changed since then?

  8. 8
    Just Annoyed says:

    Simple majority to impeach a black guy. I’m surprised its that high, actually, and isn’t 40 or something.

  9. 9
    efgoldman says:

    Actually the one way that Weeping Cheeto and his merry band of Cassiuses (??) has kept the TeaHadis in line, is tamping down any actual introduction of an impeachment resolution in the house. I kept hoping they’d try it; I still hope they do, this summer. Unless they can find another Teri Schiavo, it’s the best thing they could do for the country, and the Dems.
    [Please don’t throw us in that briar patch!]

  10. 10
    efgoldman says:

    @Lurking Canadian:

    Has the rule changed since then?

    Would require amending the Constitution, so, no.

  11. 11
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @efgoldman: Whenever I hear one of those Tea Party loons babble about impeachment, my only reply is ‘Please Proceed, Congressman”.

  12. 12
    Amir Khalid says:

    The Republicans in Congress would have to impeach and convict Joe Biden at the same time, wouldn’t they? Which has never happened before, and might conceivably be a tough sell to the public. And which, if I’m not mistaken, would hand the Presidency to John Böhner, whom they despise, and who is plainly not up to the job of Presidenting.

    I’m not saying they wouldn’t do it, crazy fuckers that they are — just wondering if they’ve gamed out the consequences thoroughly enough.

  13. 13
    geg6 says:

    @efgoldman:

    Horrid as I find the thought, you may be right. It’s the one thing your average American voter will finally look at and think they’ve completely lost the thread. Again.

    It’s our only hope to take the House, I fear. I think we might end up with an even smaller majority in the Senate, if everything goes perfectly. But the House is hopeless without some precipitating event that makes most people recoil in shock and horror.

  14. 14
    Violet says:

    Posted this in the previous thread, but it’s a better fit here.

    Sounds like the Tea Party wants Kentucky.

    Conservatives are bringing out the torches and pitchforks for Mitch McConnell.

    Long-simmering tension between the tea party and Senate minority leader has again risen to the surface as a swath of conservative activists redouble their efforts to help Kentucky businessman Matt Bevin oust McConnell in the Republican primary on May 20, before he even makes it to the general election.

    The lobbying group FreedomWorks, the Jim DeMint-founded Senate Conservatives Fund, the political organization Madison Project and prominent tea party activist Erick Erickson are all trying to tear down McConnell, a 29-year incumbent who is vying to become Senate majority leader next January.

    Rooting for injuries!

  15. 15
    catclub says:

    @efgoldman: “Cassiuses” Cassii? Casseopeia? Cassiderata? Cassoulet?

  16. 16
    Soonergrunt says:

    @Roger Moore: I sit corrected. I didn’t read enough, obviously.
    Still, I think it would be a massive distraction as they try to politically cripple this president.

  17. 17
    catclub says:

    @Amir Khalid: ” just wondering if they’ve gamed out the consequences thoroughly enough” Funny.

  18. 18
    Bobby Thomson says:

    Dude, you were alive during the Clinton administration. There’s no excuse for this kind of ignorance.

  19. 19
    jheartney says:

    It’s majority in the House to bring articles of impeachment, and two-thirds in the Senate to convict. I’ve been surprised they didn’t try impeaching right after the re-election; there’s nothing stopping them doing it in the House. Barring some unforeseen cataclysm, there won’t be enough votes in the Senate to convict even if they have a good 2014. There’s also Biden to deal with.

    I’d really like to see them do an impeachment. 2016 would be a rout for the GOP.

  20. 20
    different-church-lady says:

    Error about conviction has been noted by many above, but I agree that they’re planning to run against Obama

    What I hope I’m seeing here is that Republicans are going to spend 2014 running against Obama, and Democrats are going to spend 2014 running against their Republican opponents.

    …and it’s likely to backfire on them if they stay focused on the president instead of their own races. The hatred over the ACA is going to dissipate as more and more people discover how it helps them. They should not count on Obama being as down in the polls in 8 months from now as he is today.

  21. 21
    karen says:

    @Roger Moore:

    But they impeached Clinton.

  22. 22
    karen says:

    I think they’ve decided to incite someone from their base to shoot him instead. PBO isn’t wearing a bullet proof vest for nothing.

  23. 23
    Kathleen says:

    @Violet: A Democratic friend of mine who lives in No Kentucky (where the Tea Party has most of its support in KY) is registering as a Republican so she can vote for McConnell in the primaries in attempt to prevent Tea Party candidate in the general. She doesn’t strike me as being “super political” so I was surprised. I wonder if any other Democrats in KY will do the same.

  24. 24
    Anoniminous says:

    Deleted due to reading comprehension fail

  25. 25
    Roger Moore says:

    @Soonergrunt:

    Still, I think it would be a massive distraction as they try to politically cripple this president.

    That would be more of a problem if there were any chance of anything good happening were Obama faced with Republican majorities in both houses. Distracting the Republicans with a shiny object might be preferable to watching them actively trying to destroy stuff. And I don’t think that “Impeachment II: Electric Boogaloo” is going to be a political winner for them in 2016.

  26. 26
    Soonergrunt says:

    @karen: But they didn’t convict in the Senate. Roger Moore, and many, many others were right above. Impeachment requires simple majority in the House (it’s a wonder they haven’t actually done it) but after impeachment, the President is tried by the Senate, which requires 2/3rds majority to convict and remove from office.

    My concern here is the distraction and crippling of the government for three to six months or however long it takes. Maybe there wouldn’t be that much of a difference from today as far as legislative agendas are concerned, but I could see an impeachment followed by Senate acquittal leading some of the more nutty amongst the right wing deciding to take matters into their own hands.

  27. 27
    WereBear says:

    @Amir Khalid: just wondering if they’ve [Tea Partiers] gamed out the consequences thoroughly enough.

    LOL! Amir, you crack me up.

  28. 28
    GregB says:

    The thing that seems to be beyond the wingnuts mental capacity is that even though Benghazi was clearly a fuck-up and a tragedy it really pales in comparison to the Iraq War and 9/11.

    Those were really colossal fuck-ups to everyone else not in their closed circle jerk of anti-Obama obsession.

  29. 29
    Redshift says:

    Fortunately, in my state, we’re going to have Ed Gillespie, whose resume consists of nothing but being a professional GOP operative and an Enron lobbyist, running against the most popular man in Virginia politics, Mark Warner. He’s starting out with the weak claim that the seat is “winnable,” and thinks that all he needs to do is pin Obamacare on Warner. Plus he may have one or two teabagger primary challengers, since he’s the ultimate establishment Republican.

    I’ll still get out there and knock doors when the time comes, but in the meantime, I’m open to suggestions on which out-of-state races are worth supporting.

  30. 30
    🎂 Martin says:

    @WereBear: Seriously. The Tea Party are barely able to think far enough ahead to not walk into traffic.

  31. 31
    Baud says:

    @Redshift:

    and thinks that all he needs to do is pin Obamacare on Warner.

    Worked for Cuccinelli against Mcauliffe.

  32. 32
    BGinCHI says:

    Let’s wait until the primary debates in each state before we shit our pants in panic. These crazy GOP fuckers are going to let some freak flag fly and it ain’t going to be pretty to any voter outside the 27%.

    I’ll roll out the cliche just to make the obvious point, too: voter turnout is going to be everything.

  33. 33
    Redshift says:

    @GregB: It’s beyond the capacity of many teabaggers to grasp that Benghazi pales in comparison to the WWII. When your outage meter has no level other than 11, it’s hard to make any distinctions.

  34. 34
    GregB says:

    @Redshift:

    Montana, Alaska, Arkansas and Louisiana Senate races.

  35. 35
    Keith G says:

    Yeeeaaah, besides the vote count issue already noted, this is some Chicken Little level thinking. The sky is not falling (as far as impeachment goes) and it is not in danger of falling.

    However, this is a teachable moment. Some around these parts spend a lot of time noting, complaining, and even imagining what the other side is up to. If blogosphere snark directed at conservatives had any potency, the matter would se solved; unfortunately….

    To bastardize Shakespeare: “The issue, dear friend, is not in the GOP,But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”

    If Democrats (from the top on down) were ever able to focus on the openings that the GOP has given us and attack them with merciless aggression, we could do well enough to not only hold our own, but even pick up a few seats.

    This CBO story is an example. The GOP talking points were out on the air early and wall to wall. The more realistic and Democratic friendly view of the data was waiting for amplification. Reporters (many of whom are as thoughtful as pig snot) internalized the sales pitch that they heard first & loudest. Far too often, our side comes in second place in a two person axe fight. It does not have to happen and that’s not on them – it’s on us.

  36. 36
    Mandalay says:

    O/T Michael Dunn’s girlfriend giving testimony right now in the death-to-thugs-who-dare-to-play-loud-music-outside-a-gas-station murder. She’s on the edge of breaking down.

    She just testified that Dunn said “I hate that thug music”.

    Live video here:

  37. 37
    Corner Stone says:

    @Kathleen:

    A Democratic friend of mine who lives in No Kentucky (where the Tea Party has most of its support in KY) is registering as a Republican so she can vote for McConnell in the primaries in attempt to prevent Tea Party candidate in the general

    Why would she do that? Wouldn’t Grimes have a better chance against a TP wackaloon than a dirty street fighter like The Turtle?

  38. 38
    Redshift says:

    @Baud: Cuccinelli, in his non-concession speech, was confident that he would have won if he’d just had more time to harp on Obamacare, and lots of his followers believe it. I wonder if Gillespie is firmly enough ensconced in the Bubble to actually believe it, or if he just recognizes it’s the best way to separate the rubes from their money in a hopeless race. I’d think the latter, except that way to many in the GOP establishment seem to honestly think that a looming Obamacare disaster will sweep them into power this year.

  39. 39
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @Roger Moore:

    And I don’t think that “Impeachment II: Electric Boogaloo” is going to be a political winner for them in 2016.

    All you need is 50.1% of the smallest, whitest electorate the red state Secretaries of State can create, turning off as many non-insane voters by generating the most poisonous “the hell with them, all politicians are crooks” environment money can buy.

    It’s not a gimmie, but it’s not a long shot, either.

  40. 40
    Amir Khalid says:

    @WereBear:
    I try not to overstate my case.

  41. 41
    Roger Moore says:

    @Soonergrunt:

    it’s a wonder they haven’t actually done it

    It’s not too much of a wonder. Boehner and Cantor may be evil and a bit stupid, but they aren’t dumb enough to go for the fail parade that another impeachment would involve. As long as the House leadership remains the same, there’s going to be a strong resistance to another impeachment circus.

  42. 42
    Egypt Steve says:

    You kidding? There is an infinite number of reasons to hope that the R’s don’t take the Senate, but derailing impeachment ain’t one of them. There’s nothing that would trigger a bigger D wave in 2016 more than another wack impeachment, and so I’m all for it. If I was Obama, this is what I’d say anytime impeachment comes up:

    The power of impeachment is vested in the House of Representatives as an indispensable check against abuse of power by the President. If this House — or any House — believes that I — or any President — have committed high crimes and misdemeanors, then it is not merely their prerogative to bring forward articles of impeachment, it is there solemn duty to do so. The President will make his defense, and the Senate will sit in judgment, as the Framers intended. So if they’ve got the evidence, and if they’ve got the votes, and if they’ve got the stones, then yeah — let’s dance, motherfuckers!

  43. 43
    Jim Foolish Literalist says:

    While I’m sure there are a sizable number in the Goehmert-Steve King caucus who would attempt impeachment if they could, I don’t think the Boehners and the Cantors are that stupid. They’ll keep demagoguing about “lawlessness” to keep the olds fired up, and they may be playing sorcerers apprentice, but I doubt it will get farther than CPAC

  44. 44
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @Soonergrunt:

    … the distraction and crippling of the government for three to six months or however long it takes.

    And that’s different than the status quo, how exactly?

  45. 45
    efgoldman says:

    Meanwhile, when the Senate comes back (or are they back – who can tell?) Harry Reid better damned well start pushing bushels of nominees, especially judges, to confirmation votes.

  46. 46
    muricafukyea says:

    Haha….just STFU with your….yes HYPERBOLE. Then again if all you do is watch political TV I don’t know what to tell ya. Sucks to be you. Their ONLY goal is to keep you watching and coming back. They must have drama and if there isn’t any they will manufacture it.

    Thanks for the laugh though.

  47. 47
    TR says:

    My favorite part of this fever dream of the Republicans is that they’re all convinced Obama could, should and will be impeached … but they have no idea exactly why.

  48. 48

    Tell me again why I should fight, when the Democratic leadership themselves are not fighting? My Democratic Senator, Patricia Murray, is the one who made the budget deal with Rand Paul, the one that cut off the unemployment extension. My other senator, Maria Cantwell, was one of the champions of the farm bill which cuts SNAP. She’s very proud of it.

    The state of Washington is fairly blue, but has its Tea Party faction and a “top-two” primary system, so there is some risk these Senators will be opposed by Tea Party loons. But if my Democratic Senators are just going to cave in to the Tea Party, if heir Party isn’t going to put up any fight, why would I fight for them? So they can support more bad laws?

    Tell me why I should fight for them. Go on, tell me.

  49. 49
    Roger Moore says:

    @Davis X. Machina:
    The problem is that impeachment makes things harder. Experience shows that the Republicans do worse the more they make their actual opinions known. They’re better off keeping the crazy hidden or at least unleashing it in dosed just big enough to keep the base riled up. Yes, impeachment would get the base riled up, but they’re already riled up enough to get out the vote; driving them into an absolute frenzy doesn’t give them extra votes. What it would do is produce month after month of Republican crazy on national TV, which is going to turn off low information voters who might otherwise vote their way.

  50. 50
    rk says:

    What are they going to impeach him for? With Clinton, there was a special prosecutor and multiple investigations. Clinton did lie to the grand Jury about his affair so they had that shred to hang on to. They’ve investigated Obama for years and come up with nothing. A prosecutor has to at least come up with a charge in order to proceed. If they could have they’d have already passed articles of impeachment.If they had found anything on Benghazi we’d have had a trial in the senate by now. Sure shot failure has never deterred them before, just look at how many times they’ve tried to repeal Obamacare, or the fiasco over the debt ceiling. There is nothing that they can do to Obama, because Obama, even in an unconscious state is smarter than this entire republican congress and senate on its best days. Plus this is not the 1990s anymore where people are forced to listen to the idiot media. Even then impeachment was hugely unpopular, despite all the pro republican coverage at the time.

  51. 51
    Baud says:

    @The Raven on the Hill:

    Tell me again why I should fight, when the Democratic leadership themselves are not fighting?

    No one’s going to try to convince you of anything. Waste of time. Do whatever the hell you think is best for yourself.

  52. 52
    Roger Moore says:

    @Jim Foolish Literalist:

    While I’m sure there are a sizable number in the Goehmert-Steve King caucus who would attempt impeachment if they could, I don’t think the Boehners and the Cantors are that stupid.

    Assumes the less obviously crazy wing of the party remains in control. The teabaggers don’t like Boehner and are going to want to throw him out and replace him with one of their own if they think they can. All bets are off if Speaker Gohmert is in charge.

  53. 53
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    There is ZERO chance of conviction and removal from office, even if Obama should be Impeached, which is quite possible with a simple majority in the House, no matter how spurious the alleged “high crimes and misdemeanors” are. After all, they did it to Clinton on the most tenuous of circumstances.

    Not that reality will do anything to deter this vile racist filth. Obama needs to get the FEMA camps set up to process these treasonous maggots.

  54. 54
    TR says:

    @The Raven on the Hill:

    Because those votes are the exception to the rule.

    Are you really that stupid that you can’t see what difference a Democrat makes over a Republican there in general?

  55. 55
    D58826 says:

    iT’S actually worse than just impeachment. Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.) had a town hall meeting and one of his constituents suggested that Obama should be executed. Rather than shutting the woman down he went on a spiel about how lawless Obama is. He later claimed that he could not control what people say in an open meeting. Well it was his meeting and he very well could have put her in her place. His answer made it seem like assassination is a legitimate political tool. Even John McCain knew what the right thing was in the 2008 electron.

  56. 56
    Matt McIrvin says:

    I did the math a while back and determined that if they won every Senate seat that is contested they’d still be a little short. Maybe there have been some retirements or something to change that, but it’s still fantastically improbable.

  57. 57
    Amir Khalid says:

    @rk:
    My understanding is that Congress can define whatever they want as impeachable. The US Constitution doesn’t define “high crimes and misdemeanour”, presumably to keep presidents from evading impeachment by skirting the letter of the law.

  58. 58
    Roger Moore says:

    @rk:

    What are they going to impeach him for?

    Impeachment is a political process with a legalistic gloss, which means they can charge him with whatever strikes their fancy. It doesn’t have to be something that’s illegal under ordinary criminal law.

  59. 59
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @The Raven on the Hill: Well, you could wallow in despair instead. Looks like you’ve gotten off to a great start already!

  60. 60
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @catclub:

    Yes, a simple majority in the House can get the Impeachment process rolling. It would be stupid, but we’re dealing with people for whom “stupid” would be several orders of magnitude closer to “dull normal” than they are now.

  61. 61
    KG says:

    @Amir Khalid: President Boehner would be quite free to tell the Tea Partiers in the House to go fuck themselves kindly. Of course, then they’d impeach him, and assuming Kerry hadn’t yet stepped down as Secretary of State…

  62. 62
    Mandalay says:

    @The Raven on the Hill:

    Tell me why I should fight for them. Go on, tell me.

    Could you try to be even more rude and hostile when you want something from others? Be assured that your authority and commanding tone will be greatly respected here.

  63. 63
    trollhattan says:

    @Mandalay:

    Exxxcellent! {/montyburns}

    Perhaps bring Richard Sherman in as a character witness for the defense, exploring use of the “T” word.

    But it’s Florida, so is there any doubt this gunner-douche is getting off?

  64. 64

    @Baud: I’ve been persuaded in the past. But—if Obama were impeached, I wonder how many Democratic Senators would vote to convict?

    And, you know, it isn’t me you have to persuade. I am, in the end, one vote and a small audience. But how do you persuade young people? How do you persuade young women? They’ve grown up in a depression and watched the Democrats not even fight. It is no wonder that both parties are unpopular.

  65. 65
    Baud says:

    @The Raven on the Hill:

    We’ll do our best to get as many votes as we can. TYVM.

  66. 66

    @rk: “What are they going to impeach him for?”

    Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. “High crimes and misdemeanors” means whatever the House says it means.

    They’d gin up something if they wanted to impeach; I don’t think there’s any question of that. Thinking it over, though, I suspect they would save Benghazi for a Clinton Presidency.

  67. 67
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    Should the Rethugs actually try this stunt, it will be the final gasp of the white supremacists in this country. The blowback will be a sight to see on this. It’s the final roll of the dice for these twits. There’s no coming back from failure, and they are so lost in their little Faux Noise bubble that they do not have clue one as to how badly they will be burned if they try.

  68. 68
    GHayduke (formerly lojasmo) says:

    @The Raven on the Hill:

    Tell me why I should fight for them. Go on, tell me.

    If you need an explanation, you don’t deserve one. Have fun figuring it out.

  69. 69

    @Baud: I wish you candidates and a party worthy of your loyalty.

  70. 70
    Anybodybuther2016 says:

    @rk: PBO is clean. They know it and the majority of Americans know it. They can talk all the shit they want to their dumbass base but they know better than to try to impeach him.

  71. 71
    trollhattan says:

    @rk:

    I assume “governin’ while bein’ black” will do, but confess I can’t actually get into their “minds” enough to make an eddykated guess beyond that. But that’s clearly his Original Sin.

  72. 72
    Amir Khalid says:

    @KG:
    Gee, I don’t know. My guess is that President Böhner wouldn’t dare say boo to a goose.

  73. 73
    max says:

    @Soonergrunt: But they didn’t convict in the Senate. Roger Moore, and many, many others were right above. Impeachment requires simple majority in the House (it’s a wonder they haven’t actually done it) but after impeachment, the President is tried by the Senate, which requires 2/3rds majority to convict and remove from office.

    Yes. Impeachment is an otherwise ordinary bill. (The entire concept was modeled on the English Parliament’s ability to remove a King if they believed he was bad.) They can impeach him or being a Democrat or black if they want. (They wouldn’t have any credibility if they did so, but they can do it.)

    My concern here is the distraction and crippling of the government for three to six months or however long it takes.

    If anything, I suspect the impeachment craze would improve the ability of Congress to pass decent legislation since the R base will be preoccupied.

    Maybe there wouldn’t be that much of a difference from today as far as legislative agendas are concerned, but I could see an impeachment followed by Senate acquittal leading some of the more nutty amongst the right wing deciding to take matters into their own hands.

    Yeah, but the idea of a coup attempt is pretty much in the air anyways. I expect impeachment will have the opposite effect – it’ll take the air out of the balloon. (It took the air out of the ‘Clinton is evil’ balloon… with the general public.)

    max
    [‘I am entirely with you on the notion of that some rightwing folks are (and have been) floating lots of stupid ideas and that might lead to action, but I doubt impeachment would be a catalyst.’]

  74. 74
    Mandalay says:

    @trollhattan:

    But it’s Florida, so is there any doubt this gunner-douche is getting off?

    I actually doubt it. His girlfriend’s testimony is putting him away at the moment. She’s obviously distraught, but obviously telling the truth.

    She corrected Dunn’s lawyer when he understated how much alcohol Dunn had drunk. She testified that they saw a police car as they fled the scene and kept going. She testified that she and Dunn both had cell phones in the car as they fled the scene. She testified that she saw the SUV full of bullet holes on the TV news the morning after the murder. And still Dunn didn’t contact the police.

    Dunn’s lawyer is hopeless. Dunn is fucked.

  75. 75
    Baud says:

    @Amir Khalid:

    I think he’d say boo to a Grey Goose.

  76. 76

    @GHayduke (formerly lojasmo): “If you need an explanation, you don’t deserve one.”

    Oh, that’s really going to get people on your side.

    Look, the Democrats (and the Republicans) or the Progressive Libertarian Party, or whatever, has to make their case. But “better than the Republicans” is not much of a campaign slogan. And, increasingly, it doesn’t even seem to be true; in the end the Democrats don’t even fight on the big issues.

  77. 77
    Mnemosyne (iPad Mini) says:

    @Mandalay:

    If anyone needed any additional proof that “thug” is the new euphemism for “nigger,” I think it’s right there.

  78. 78
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @The Raven on the Hill:

    I’ve been persuaded in the past. But—if Obama were impeached, I wonder how many Democratic Senators would vote to convict?

    Well, given that there’s nothing concrete to Impeach him over, the answer is ZERO. Not one Democrat is going to vote to remove him from office for the crime of Presidentin’ while blah, which really is all the Rethugs have. You forget that in the Nixon case, he was told by Senators from his own party that the votes were not there in the Senate to acquit him, which is why he resigned in disgrace to avoid making history another way…removal from office for cause.

    There is no scandal, no deed Obama has committed, that even begins to reach the outskirts of what Nixon did. They only got Clinton after weaving a perjury trap over many months that left Clinton in a situation where he’d have to avoid a lie about his sex life, not about anything he did in office with his powers as President, to escape, and even then they couldn’t prove it to the satisfaction of a simple majority, let alone the supermajority needed for conviction and removal from office.

  79. 79
    Roger Moore says:

    @trollhattan:
    I think that beating the Republican candidate is his most important sin. The Republicans were perfectly happy to impeach certified white male Bill Clinton.

  80. 80
    Jim Foolish Literalist says:

    @The Raven on the Hill: If Democrats had gotten UI past the filibuster, you’d be (p)outraged about something else.

  81. 81
    trollhattan says:

    @Mandalay:

    Color me surprised. She sounds like a stand-up gal–perhaps came to her senses as to why she was with this guy to begin with. Otherwise it would have been easy to “disremember” the damning details.

  82. 82
    bmoak says:

    There is no way the Republicans will end up with 67 seats in the Senate, but they could get close enough where just a handful of votes from Dems would get them to the magic number. Imagine if Obama’s fate lay in the hands of Joe Manchin and Mary Landrieu….

  83. 83
    efgoldman says:

    @rk:

    A prosecutor has to at least come up with a charge in order to proceed.

    Impeachment is a political process, not a judicial one. The House, if it chooses, could vote out articles of impeachment because they don’t like Obama’s haircut.

  84. 84

    @Villago Delenda Est: “Well, given that there’s nothing concrete to Impeach him over, the answer is ZERO.”

    Are you so sure that for the right incentive, one or two of the Senate Democrats might not break rank? They’ve caved on so many major issues.

    This is the thing: a political fight may be losing, but sometimes you have to make it, both to keep up your morale, and to keep the voters on your side. And yet increasingly for some time now, on the big issues, the Democratic Senators have not fought. So maybe one or two of them is broken enough just to cave.

  85. 85
    geg6 says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    I agree completely. The Gohmerts of the lower house of Congress will be frothing at the mouth and who knows what kind of filth will fall out. And it will be like the scream of the Wicked Witch of the West after she got drenched with a bucket of water. And the rest of the country will be appalled at what crawls out of their sick minds. Clinton’s trial will seem like a dignified and measured demonstration of sober justice compared to an impeachment proceeding against Obama. And the fellators in the MSM will not be able to cover for them. As awful as it would be, it might be the best thing that could happen. It’s like lancing a boil. All kinds of smelling disgusting muck comes pouring out, but the wound eventually heals over once the rotten infection is gone.

  86. 86
    Anne Laurie says:

    Well, look on the bright side, SG — even if the Repubs take the Senate, and if they gin up some kind of high misdemeanor more unlawful than “Presidenting while Black”, and if the votes were there to convict… then we’re looking at President Joe Biden. Who will (unless the rules have changed since Watergate) get to appoint his own VP. (Also, probably, a couple new Supreme Court justices since at least one or two of the Bloc for Evil — Scalia, Alito, Thomas & Roberts — will stroke out at some point during the proceedings or at Biden’s inauguration.) Then Biden gets to run as the incumbent in 2016 (“He brought us together, in healing!”) and his VP has a head start on 2020. Which may ruin HRC’s chances, but if Biden appoints a younger woman — Gillibrand, Napolitano, Kamala Harris, Wendy Davis — she’s got at least two and probably six years of national attention to build her own platform, and the It’s Time for A Woman drumbeat will only get louder. Whatever shreds of the Republican party survive the impeachment circus (and I’m thinking we see the Teahadist crazies take over the machinery, while whichever semi-functional “centrists” can’t switch to the Dems form some kind of uneasy third party) will go the way of the Whigs or the Free Silver party…

  87. 87
    BGinCHI says:

    @The Raven on the Hill: Congratulations. You are boring.

    Pro tip: Utopias are aspirational.

  88. 88
    Corner Stone says:

    @Jim Foolish Literalist:

    If Democrats had gotten UI past the filibuster, you’d be (p)outraged about something else.

    Democrats should have had UI extension in the bi-partisan budget deal Patty Murray negotiated.
    That may be uncomfortable for some to acknowledge, but as time goes by it is an inescapable truth.

  89. 89
    🎂 Martin says:

    “I hate that thug music”.

    Just more proof that Richard Sherman is one of the smartest guys in the room.

  90. 90
    Corner Stone says:

    @BGinCHI: Ooo! Ooo! Do me next!

  91. 91
    jl says:

    As commenters said above, there is the Biden problem. How are they going to get Obama and Biden at the same time? Even though Biden has had in the past, the stench of the Delaware financial corporations hanging around him, his role in some of the bad deregulation and bankruptcy ‘reforms’ is ambiguous. He claims in retrospect hat the legislation was going to pass anyway, and he played a role in delaying and making it less bad.

    But, that aside, on a lot of economic issues, Biden is to the left of Obama. I think he certainly is on macroeconomic and foreign trade patent and IP policy, and certainly on labor. The GOP won’t be able to play the racist card with him, though they will try. I can see them using the crazy uncle muscle car cartoons to paint him as near N-clang white trash in the WH (edit: Just like they did with Clinton).

    I don’t think Biden will scare easily. More likely he would take the road of “Oh yeah, you didn’t like Barack, huh? Well, get a load me assholes. See you effers at my impeachment.”

    So, as a plan, impeaching Obama stinks, unless they can get both out. But then there would be the very bad public reaction, which would be worse than created by the BS Clinton impeachment and trial.

  92. 92
    Mandalay says:

    @trollhattan:

    She sounds like a stand-up gal–perhaps came to her senses as to why she was with this guy to begin with.

    Let’s not go too far – a stand-up gal would have begged him to call the cops, and she didn’t testify that she did that. AFAIK she is standing by him, but she is clearly overwhelmed by being in the witness box, and reliving that awful night.

    I think she is absolutely terrified of being caught in a lie while she is testifying, and the easiest way for her to avoid that is to give completely honest answers.

  93. 93
    CarolDuhart2 says:

    @bmoak: Actually I worry less about the Landrieus than anyone else in that scenario. They know if they turn against Obama on this, they can kiss their seats goodbye. Those people need the votes of loyal-often African American-Democrats to have even a chance at a narrow win. Not to mention national money as well to fend off party challengers.

    I would be more worried about a grandstanding blue stater than those two;

  94. 94
    Mnemosyne (iPad Mini) says:

    @The Raven on the Hill:

    Wait, you think that LOSING fights increases morale?

    Jaysus, no wonder you get pissed off every time Democrats succeed. Nothing kills morale like winning, amirite?

  95. 95
    geg6 says:

    @jl:

    Do you really believe that the Louis Gohmerts of the world think that far ahead? I don’t.

  96. 96
    trollhattan says:

    @The Raven on the Hill:

    Cave to whom? For what reward? Think corvid, think, your enemy here has nothing to deal. Nothing.

  97. 97
    gene108 says:

    @Roger Moore:

    Impeachment is a political process with a legalistic gloss, which means they can charge him with whatever strikes their fancy. It doesn’t have to be something that’s illegal under ordinary criminal law.

    Andrew Johnson was impeached – and was one vote from being removed from office – because Congress passed a law stating the President could not remove a Cabinet Secretary without Congressional approval or some such.

    Johnson sacked Sec of War Stanton.

    He got impeached.

    If Republicans got control of the Senate, I’m sure a law could be tacked onto a bill that would make it hard for Obama to do his job and when he chose ti “ignore” the letter of the law and get something done, Congress could impeach him for it.

    There’s stuff that already exists that is sort of on the edge of this, like Obama’s “recess” appointments that were done even though the Senate was technically still in session.

  98. 98
    Roger Moore says:

    @bmoak:

    There is no way the Republicans will end up with 67 seats in the Senate, but they could get close enough where just a handful of votes from Dems would get them to the magic number.

    Only with an utterly catastrophic election for the Democrats. If the Republicans won every last election in 2014, they’d still be 1 vote short. Even pessimistic predictions give the Democrats 6 safe and 6 likely seats, so the chances of the Republicans getting within 10 votes of the threshold for impeachment are pretty slim. I think it’s more likely that there would be some revelation that would make Obama legitimately impeachable than the Republicans getting close enough to 67 votes that they can pressure some Democrats to impeach him.

  99. 99
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @The Raven on the Hill:

    OK, it’s pretty much official, now. You’re posting from the Spock-With-A-Beard universe, aren’t you?

    There is no way in hell that any sitting Democratic Senator would EVER vote to convict Obama of “Presidentin’ while blah” which is ALL the Rethugs have right now. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, to pin on Obama that has the slightest chance of having so much as a nanogram of weight on the scales of justice to convict him and remove him from office.

    The Rethugs certainly can Impeach Obama for something, anything, perhaps violating a White House “no smoking” roped off area, but there’s no way to get a conviction on anything as ludicrous as they’ve put forward so far, which amounts to we’ve got to throw this nigger out of the White House. That’s all they and their drooling base have.

  100. 100
    tybee says:

    @The Raven on the Hill:

    i, too, get a bit frustrated but until we get a more progressive leaning electorate – or at least a non-gerrymandered one, and a democrat party that will fight, all i can do is vote against the conservative lunatics.
    if we get beyond eking out a democrat by any means, then i can choose the “purity” candidate but until then, hold your nose and pull the D lever.

  101. 101
    🎂 Martin says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPad Mini):

    Wait, you think that LOSING fights increases morale?

    Flappy Birds is his favorite game.

  102. 102
    jl says:

    Looking for a bright side of the threat of total GOP suicidal lunacy that would seriously damage the country, if this is a real plan rumbling around the corridors and quiet back rooms, Obama certainly knows about it. It might spur him to put a lot of effort into the midterm.

    When I heard Obama say during 2012 and 2013 ‘my last election’, I thought to myself “No it isn’t. You got 2014 to get through, unless you want an even worse Congress.” And the example of Clinton should be on any Democratic president’s mind, no matter what gender, race, ethnicity they are.

    I wonder if Obama either did not work hard enough in 2010, or simply made a mistake about how well his post-partisan politics pitch or appeal of his quiet calm wonk approach would work in the midterms.

    I hope Obama pulls out all the stops for 2014, and to the extent he can, gets Biden and the Clintons and anyone else on the road for the midterms to really sell the voters on keeping Congress safe from a vicious lunatics GOP.

  103. 103
    Roger Moore says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Democrats should have had UI extension in the bi-partisan budget deal Patty Murray negotiated.

    Have you considered looking up “negotiation” in the dictionary? Hint: it generally involves concessions by both sides. The Democrats were not going to get everything they wanted from the budget negotiations; extending UI would have meant giving up something else. If the Democrats could have gotten everything they wanted, there would have been no need for negotiations.

  104. 104
    Baud says:

    @jl:

    A lot of Democrats ran away from Obama in 2010. They listened to all the naysayers and got hosed.

  105. 105
    Erin says:

    Maybe you should stick to posting recipes and shit about your cat, since it looks like the whole central premise of this post wasn’t researched even a little bit.

  106. 106
    Patrick says:

    @The Raven on the Hill:

    “What are they going to impeach him for?” Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. “High crimes and misdemeanors” means whatever the House says it means.

    If they impeach Obama over Benghazi, then George W Bush needs to be impeached twice retroactively. There were a hell of a lot more US diplomats murdered during the Bush era than those 4 under Obama.

  107. 107
    Keith G says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPad Mini):

    Wait, you think that LOSING fights increases morale?

    Well, letting the other side win by default ain’t so hot either.

    Thirty-seven percent now approve of the job Mr. Obama is doing as president, down from 46 percent in October — a nine point drop in just a month. Mr. Obama’s disapproval rating is 57 percent — the highest level for this president in CBS News Polls.

    These numbers will change,but Democratic passivity has taken it’s toll.

  108. 108
    Erin says:

    @Keith G: You quoted the lowest approval rating for the President ever, not the current approval rating.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/116.....roval.aspx

  109. 109
    jl says:

    @Keith G: Yes. And GOP numbers are even worse, much worse. Voters don’t get a bonus dream candidate or none of the above on the ballot, they have to chose.

    Voters can passively chose none of the above by staying home, but that is solved by turnout, and that is why Obama and the Democratic Party have to put in a real effort for the midterms.

  110. 110
    mai naem says:

    I know the rw are a bunch of whackjobs but I truly don’t see what they base the impeachment on. There’s only two things they can go after – Benghazi and the IRS stuff but they aren’t going to be able to connect it to Obama directly. Benghazi was a screwup but not malicious and you can spread the blame around on Benghazi. The IRS scandal, well they went after left wing groups too so what?

    Meanwhile I just keep on looking at other countries to move to. While we’re busy spinning our wheels about Ben-ghazeee!!! and Musleems!!! and O-Care!OMG!Website! other countries are moving ahead of us in infrastructure. Korea and Japan provide universal healthcare but OMG we can’t do it here. The artificial hand in the news yesterday was developed in Europe not, you know, in the worlds best healthcare country.

  111. 111
    BGinCHI says:

    @Corner Stone: You are never boring.

    Pro tip: more flossing.

  112. 112

    @Patrick: Yes, there were much better reasons to impeach Bush II than Obama. But you are expecting politics to be reasonable.

  113. 113
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Patrick:

    Also, too, “BENGHAZI!” is a joke. However, waging a war of aggression is not, and Germans and Japanese were hanged for it after WWII.

  114. 114

    @Keith G: “Well, letting the other side win by default ain’t so hot either.”

    And sometimes even surrender, which the Senate Dems have done on both the unemployment insurance extension and SNAP.

  115. 115

    @Roger Moore: “The Democrats were not going to get everything they wanted from the budget negotiations; ”

    The resulting budget was less than the original Ryan budget. The Democrats scarcely got anything.

  116. 116
    Roger Moore says:

    @mai naem:

    There’s only two things they can go after – Benghazi and the IRS stuff

    Don’t forget the NSA. The Republicans will happily ignore that all this stuff started long before Obama got into office.

  117. 117
    jl says:

    @mai naem: Seems to me, in any trial based on Benghazi, the defense will bring up battles between Executive and Congress on appropriate funding levels for Dept. of State. It would end up messy as hell, and public approval of a the trial itself, let alone a conviction, would be even less than for the Clinton trial.

    Instead of Clinton pleading about what the definition of ‘is’ is, it would the GOP pleading about ‘act of terror’ doesn’t mean ‘terror attack’ doesn’t mean ‘terrorist’ doesn’t mean ‘terrorism’.

  118. 118

    @BGinCHI: You want boring? Try another six years of depression. Boring. Like a dentists drill.

    I do not think it is utopian to want a healthy economy and a bit of compassion for the poor.

    Ask yourself what you have accepted, in your compromises.

  119. 119
    Chickamin Slam says:

    @The Raven on the Hill: Of course they are. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell are limousine liberals.

    Patty Murray used to fight for veterans, now she thinks they deserve less.

    Both cannot wait to throw their supporters under the bus to come to a compromise. Even if they are the only ones doing the compromising.

  120. 120
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Violet:

    As long as these twits go after their own for failure to be ideologically pure enough, they’re going to lose. They learned NOTHING from Nevada and Delaware in 2010, where the GOP had reasonable shots of taking seats and they fucked it up by running teatard loons.

  121. 121
    raven says:

    @tybee: Savannah tire fire: Giant blaze fueled by 5,600 tons of rubber burns at the Port of Savannah

    Read more: http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/n.....z2slz9GSZ6

  122. 122
    BGinCHI says:

    @The Raven on the Hill: You are right. We should not have compromised.

    We should have……what?

    How do you get what you want in politics?

    Outraged righteousness?

    Incrementalism sucks but it’s what adults recognize as progress.

  123. 123
    Cassidy says:

    Watching the Olympics is so much more satisfying than a purity slap fight.

  124. 124
    Baud says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    I read your first sentence and I thought you were talking about our side. Ha.

  125. 125

    OK, to talk about something else: it seems to me we have two enemies. The obvious one is the one Soonergrunt fingered in the post that started all this: the Tea Party Republicans. But the less obvious one is the centrists, the “reasonable” conservatives. And these are bipartisan, and are in control. And this is the faction that is making the deals that leave criminals firmly in control of the financial system, the ones who are tightening the screws with their cuts to the social insurance network. Who will wait until there are climate disasters in their home states to act on climate change.

    And who cave to the radical right, to keep their power.

    We need to make centrism politically expensive, and fighting to keep the Senate in control of the centrist-dominated Democratic Senators is not going to do it.

  126. 126
    Corner Stone says:

    @Roger Moore: Have you considered looking up “myopia” ?
    Your way continues the rear guard action where we don’t make the argument, but rather natter about how much to cut.
    If the D’s had stuck their flag in the dirt and said, “Nope. We’re not hurting these people. And we’re going to make sure they know the demarcation between us.”

    Listen, this is easy balls. We gave them up. We fucking gave them up.
    Let’s see you make the case that giving them up makes sense.

    We had leverage and we gave it up. Now extension of UI is a wily political football that exists all on its own. No one wins by fighting for the poors.
    I guess that’s who you want us to be, and who we are now.
    Congratulations.

  127. 127
    Jim Foolish Literalist says:

    @jl:A Frontal Assault on the Midterm Falloff
    By Ed Kilgore
    The Democrats’ plan to hold onto their narrow Senate majority goes by the name “Bannock Street project.” It runs through 10 states, includes a $60 million investment, and requires more than 4,000 paid staffers. And the effort will need all of that — and perhaps more — to achieve its goal, which is nothing short of changing the character of the electorate in a midterm cycle.

    Kilgore is quoting a story from the NYT, but his blog is free. There are some interesting, and depressing, stats in the article he cites. In GA, there are half a million unregistered African-American voters, and 600,000 Dem-leaning voters who showed up in ’08 and ’12, but not in 2010. Looking for Saxby Chambliss’ MOV in ’08, I was surprised to learn he had to go to a run-off in ’08. I don’t remember ever hearing that, and those numbers are, again, interesting and depressing.

    Chambliss: 1,867,097 general 1,228,033 runoff
    Martin: 1,757,393 general 909,923 runoff

    800,000 Democrats couldn’t be bothered to show up for the run-off vote. I don’t get not voting, I really don’t get not voting in a run off like that.

  128. 128
    raven says:

    @Cassidy: They guy screaming on the Biathlon call was nuts!

  129. 129
    Corner Stone says:

    @Roger Moore: Everything? How about “anything”.

  130. 130

    @BGinCHI: in politics, sometimes it’s best to be seen putting up a fight, even if you may not win it. But who is this “we?” I do not think you are part of the “we” that wanted to see the bankers let off for their crimes, who wanted to see people put out of their homes by fraud and hard times, who have agreed to cuts on unemployment insurance and SNAP.

    My faction—my “we”—cannot win this fight. We have lost every major battle. Can your faction do better?

  131. 131
    Baud says:

    @raven:

    Haha. I was about to post the same thing. Thought he was going to have a heart attack.

  132. 132
    Corner Stone says:

    Hey, I guess that’s who we are now.

  133. 133
    raven says:

    @Baud: And then he’d come down and talk normally and then he’d crank it up again!

  134. 134
    Corner Stone says:

    No UI extension and $9B in SNAP cuts on top of the $11B in SNAP cuts through the agreement to accept sequestration numbers in budget.
    Great fucking job.
    How about we undertake an act of mercy and just fucking kill the hostages ourselves. Let’s stop bullshitting and just line them up and be done with it.
    Fuck you.

  135. 135
    Corner Stone says:

    But, I guess…REPUBLICANS!! Amirite?

  136. 136
    Corner Stone says:

    We’re hurting people/families and losing another generation of human capital in the process.
    But, hey, bygones. Amirite!

  137. 137
    Cassidy says:

    @raven: You gotta admit, though, it was pretty exciting.

  138. 138
    Corner Stone says:

    Fucking asshole.

  139. 139
    Baud says:

    @Cassidy:

    I am amazed when long races come down to split second differences.

  140. 140
    raven says:

    @Cassidy: It was but damn!

    BIATHLON: Steve Schlanger will be the play-by-play announcer for NBC and NBCSN’s biathlon coverage. Schlanger’s broadcasting experience includes calling cycling, triathlon and open water play-by-play at the London Olympics, as well as various hockey and college basketball games for NBC Sports and events on Golf Channel. Former U.S. Biathlon Team member Chad Salmela returns for his fourth Games as a biathlon and cross-country analyst.

  141. 141
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @mai naem:

    I know the rw are a bunch of whackjobs but I truly don’t see what they base the impeachment on.

    Whatever 218 House members think is impeachable, is impeachable…

  142. 142
    Corner Stone says:

    I keep trying, but House of Cards just isn’t all that good.
    And I am a big fan of Keyzer and The Princess.

  143. 143
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    Well, given that there’s nothing concrete to Impeach him over, the answer is ZERO

    Drones! NSA! Libya!

  144. 144
    feebog says:

    Not only would every Democrat vote against impeachment, there are a fair number of Republicans that most likely would also vote nay. Heller, Ayotte, Kirk, Portman, Collins, McCain and Flake to name a few.

    Moreover, impeachment would seal their fate in 2016. Dems would sweep back both houses and instill HRC in the White House. I just don’t see it happening.

  145. 145
    NobodySpecial says:

    Anyone who claims Democrats will vote in lockstep against impeachment has forgotten (or is busy celebrating) how pliable many Democratic politicians have become in the name of ‘adult’ ‘incrementalism’ and in response to right wing pressure.

    PATRIOT Act?
    AUMF?
    Dismantling of the original ACA?
    Sequester?

    Put nothing past a Blue Dog.

  146. 146
    Corner Stone says:

    @feebog:

    there are a fair number of Republicans that most likely would also vote nay. Heller, Ayotte, Kirk, Portman, Collins, McCain and Flake to name a few.

    Wow. I want some of what you’re smoking.
    Hmmm, somehow that’s not as effective after WA and CO.
    Dammit.

  147. 147
    GHayduke (formerly lojasmo) says:

    @The Raven on the Hill:

    Not looking to win oner a bunch of nattering nihilists. You can sulk in a corner, as it seems you are wont to do.

  148. 148
    jl says:

    @NobodySpecial: That is true. But whether enough would bolt, depends on how many learned the lesson of past several elections: Blue dog Dems hang together with the Democratic Party, or they hang separately.

    Edit: And an Obama impeachment would be 100 percent political, especially after the stunts of Bush II, so blue dogs would know voting in favor would be purely the kind of cynical political calculation that did nothing at all to help their defeated ex-colleagues. I admit this reasoning requires that that most blue dogs are smarter than GOPers like Pence.

  149. 149

    @GHayduke (formerly lojasmo): OK, I’m irrelevant. So now what do you have to offer young people? What do you have to offer women?

  150. 150

    I think everyone needs to relax, the midterm elections are months away, there is no need to be this defeatist about something that has yet to happen. The Republicans may be evil but they are also stupid. Watch out for the debt ceiling drama coming up this month.

  151. 151
    Kay says:

    @Jim Foolish Literalist:

    I don’t get not voting, I really don’t get not voting in a run off like that.

    It’s great they’re trying, and the “sporadic voter” approach can be really amazingly effective- we used the exact list and strategy from 2012 for a school bond race so it was fun to watch it work with such small numbers. We wanted 500 additional “sporadic” voters and we got a little over 400 which was enough. BUT, it’s just a fact that Congressional races are really hard to get “our” voters out for.

    People hate Congress. They really do. They don’t understand the rules or why everything takes so long or fails completely and is so contentious. The only saving grace this cycle may be that Republican voters hate Congress, too.

    I always feel like maybe they should concentrate on state races- state issues are much more local and easier to explain, and let the state races carry the federal races, rather than vice versa, in off-years. They’re the same voters (theoretically) or they COULD be the same voters. It would be trickier I suppose, real coordination, bottom up, but God, they got nothing but data. It’s not like they can’t make maps and lists that line up the two tiers.

  152. 152
    GHayduke (formerly lojasmo) says:

    @Keith G:

    Way to choose the absolute WORST poll. You are a very dishonest person.

  153. 153
    gene108 says:

    @BGinCHI:

    How do you get what you want in politics?

    By force, duh….

    The Senate Dems should’ve kidnapped the children and grandchildren of Republicans and held them for ransom to get the liberal utopia we deserve delivered.

    Hostage taking is a time honored and ancient means of diplomacy.

    We should not forget the old ways.

  154. 154
    GHayduke (formerly lojasmo) says:

    @Corner Stone:

    And in this scenario, we would have had NO UI, NO SNAP, and NO budget.

    Legislation…how the hell does it work?

  155. 155

    Caturday Cat can teach us a thing or two about chilling out.

  156. 156
    GHayduke (formerly lojasmo) says:

    @Corner Stone:

    There were zero democratic defections, and a handful of republican defections in the Clinton verdict.

  157. 157
    GHayduke (formerly lojasmo) says:

    @The Raven on the Hill:

    Health insurance for millions previously uninsurable, an end to the Iraq war, an end to DADT and, largely, DOMA. Millions of new jobs, and a decrease of the unemployment to 6.6% Bin Laden is gone. The president has recently raised the minimum wage for federal contractors to $10.10, and is calling on congress to do the same for every American. Lilly Ledbeter fair pay act.

    Sotomayor.
    Kagan.

    There’s lots of good reasons to support democrats.

  158. 158
    Jim Foolish Literalist says:

    @The Raven on the Hill: So now what do you have to offer young people? What do you have to offer women?

    the Supreme Court; an increased minimum wage; environmental protections; recognition that reproduction is a medical issue, not a religious one; immigration reform; health insurance; separation of church and state; just to name a few.

    @Kay: People hate Congress. They really do. They don’t understand the rules or why everything takes so long or fails completely and is so contentious.

    Yeah. /sigh/ that was a deliberate part of McConnell’s strategy in ’09, fuck everything up and blame Obama. I’m not optimistic about breaking the mid-term pattern, but at least it looks like a serious effort.

  159. 159
    EriktheRed says:

    I don’t believe they could successfully remove President Obama form office, but if they did, I would hope that President Biden would then say at his inaugural speech,

    “This is not how I wanted to finally achieve this office. My predecessor, President Barack Obama, did absolutely nothing illegal; nothing that would qualify as a ‘high crime’ or ‘misdemeanor’. He was removed from office simply because he wasn’t liked. He represented a change in the demographic makeup of the United States of America which others found threatening for some reason. Well, for those of you celebrating his departure right now, I’ve got news for you: ultimately he was only one individual in a movement with far more members than you. That movement is now going to kick into overdrive and I’ll be doing all in my power to help it achieve its goals. Good luck ever putting one of your guys in the White House again.”

  160. 160
    Kay says:

    @Jim Foolish Literalist:

    Yeah. /sigh/ that was a deliberate part of McConnell’s strategy in ’09, fuck everything up and blame Obama.

    Well, if it was it was a dumb strategy because people hate Congress now, not Democrats in Congress. I think the only reason they got a farm bill is they realized they had to finish something, at some time, or they were all going to get hurt.

    You know this, but it’s just very hard. We’ll have a challenger for Latta, and most of the “sporadic” voters won’t know who Latta is, let alone this new person they’re supposed to be enthused about. They’re sporadic voters. They don’t pay any attention to “Congress”.

    I saw the list is focused on Senate races, which is good, because that’s at least statewide.

  161. 161
    debbie says:

    I think the real distraction will be the Repubs fighting over who gets to chair the committee. This country needs a good dose of humor, and the House’ll provide it.

  162. 162

    @<a href="#@Chickamin Slam: comment-4859699″>Corner Stone: Thank you.

    @Jim Foolish Literalist: If the Dems had fought—not even won, just fought—for the UI extension and against the SNAP cuts, I’d have stood up and cheered. And, yes, the following week I’d be pushing them on something else. But I wouldn’t be left wondering why I should vote for them.

    The problems with runoff votes you cite are a compelling argument for voting system reform: either the instant runoff or the range vote, but these are wonkish issues with very small constituencies.

    @TR: I wish these votes were exceptional. But since 9/11, this is what we’ve been seeing.

  163. 163
    jl says:

    @Kay:

    ” McConnell’s strategy ”

    Doesn’t look like it’s working out very well for McConnell himself right now. KY voters seem to disapprove of him as much as of Obama, good qualified candidate running neck and neck against him for general, and teabaggers out for his scalp in primaries.

    It will be interesting to see how well the GOP does electorally, now that those geniuses blew off electoral operators like Rove and Frum, who I think are evil, and not as good at math as they they think they are, but at least they do know what math is, and who have some ability to reason.

  164. 164

    @Jim Foolish Literalist: “the Supreme Court; an increased minimum wage; environmental protections; recognition that reproduction is a medical issue, not a religious one; immigration reform; health insurance; separation of church and state; just to name a few.”

    Jim, they’ve already given away the Court. It looks like the Keystone pipeline fix is in. The ACA saw the biggest walkback on reproductive rights since the Hyde amendment.

    You see the problem?

  165. 165
    Cassidy says:

    Oh sweet baby jesus. You vote either Democrat or Republican that’s what we have. Or you can not vote/ vote 3rd party, same difference. One option will get you some progressive policies. The other two will get you none. I’m not a math genius but some is better than none. Regardless, pick one, but please stop pretending you’re stuck in a noble moral conundrum.

  166. 166
    Kay says:

    @jl:

    Doesn’t look like it’s working out very well for McConnell himself right now. KY voters seem to disapprove of him as much as of Obama, good qualified candidate running neck and neck against him for general, and teabaggers out for his scalp in primaries.

    I agree. Kentucky might be really interesting, because they had Beshear who decided (sensibly and smartly) to stop apologizing for the health care law and just 100% back it.

    Wouldn’t that be just delicious, if he lost because of the health care law?

    This is Beshear in December:

    “I want to publicly invite our entire federal delegation to come back to Kentucky as [Democratic Rep.] John Yarmuth does all the time and come over to our center, our nerve center where we’re running this program and see for yourself what is going on,” said Beshear. “When you see that, I think you’ll quit saying this will not work and Kentuckians don’t want it.”

    Come back to Kentucky you horrible, out of touch elites!

    They would never, ever admit it, it will be “he wasn’t conservative enough” but it would be great.

  167. 167
    Captain C says:

    @Amir Khalid:

    I’m not saying they wouldn’t do it, crazy fuckers that they are — just wondering if they’ve gamed out the consequences thoroughly enough.

    Of course they haven’t. Or they think they’ll overthrow Boehner and put (insert name of Tea Partier currently having this fantasy) in as Speaker, and then impeach Obama and Biden.

  168. 168
    Baud says:

    @Kay:

    I saw Jimmy Carter’s grandson on MSNBC. He’s running for governor in Georgia. He’s casting opponents of Medicaid expansion as playing a Washington game at the expense of the people of Georgia. I thought it was an interesting take.

  169. 169
    Soonergrunt says:

    @Erin: Maybe you should figure out which front pager you’re talking to, since it looks like the whole central premise of your comment wasn’t researched even a little bit.

  170. 170
    Snarki, child of Loki says:

    @Just Annoyed: “Simple majority to impeach a black guy. I’m surprised its that high, actually, and isn’t 40 or something.”

    No, no, no…simple majority for impeachment, but to convict the Ni*CLANG* the GOP will try to go with the “3/5” rule.

  171. 171
    MCLecher says:

    Missouri wingnut Republicans already impeaching Gov. Nixon.Not talking about it, filing two different actions.

    http://www.missourinet.com/201.....-articles/

    http://www.kansascity.com/2014.....t-gov.html

  172. 172
    Kay says:

    @Baud:

    playing a Washington game at the expense of the people of Georgia.

    Which is 100% true. It’s all the rage, apparently, running against Republicans on Medicaid expansion:

    Landrieu has also attacked Republicans aggressively over their opposition to the Medicaid expansion

  173. 173
    Erin says:

    @Soonergrunt: “Oh no, we have to keep a majority in the senate or else Obama could get impeached!”

    You change that one little fact, that impeachment requires a 2/3 majority, and the entire central premise of your article falls apart. What do you want, a hug? What you need is an editor.

  174. 174
    Cassidy says:

    @Erin: Just want to point out that SG has never done a cat post. He has a little foo-foo dog, but no cats. Pretty sure no recipes, either. We did talk about MREs once.

  175. 175
    eyelessgame says:

    The point of an impeachment is 2016, and casting dirt on Hillary Clinton. They know very well they couldn’t get 67 votes in the Senate. That’s not the point. The point is to say “Benghazi” and “Secretary Clinton” and synonyms for “scandal” over and over and over and overandover.

    Impeaching Bill Clinton didn’t make him less popular. But it made him, in the minds of many, less personally trustworthy. When Dubya had to run against peace and prosperity, his most effective attack line was to say Gore wasn’t sufficiently “trustworthy”. There is a reason they are doing this – it is that they believe this strategy has already worked.

  176. 176
    jheartney says:

    @eyelessgame: It worked to the extent that Gore was spooked and ran from the Big Dog. And that there were five SCOTUS justices ready to drag Dubya over the finish line when he didn’t quite make it. With an electorate multiple percentage points more white and conservative than today. Which didn’t have C+Augustus’ catastrophic failures fresh in mind. During a time before the internet had democratized news, so that the Serious People in Washington still had their unearned credibility.

    I’d be giddy with excitement if these morons actually tried impeaching BHO. I wish they’d do it this year so we could get our landslide in 2014 and not have to wait for Hillary.

  177. 177
    TS says:

    @karen:

    I think they’ve decided to incite someone from their base to shoot him instead. PBO isn’t wearing a bullet proof vest for nothing.

    That has been their plan since he was elected. Fortunately it has not been successful.

  178. 178
    TS says:

    @Keith G:

    This CBO story is an example. The GOP talking points were out on the air early and wall to wall. The more realistic and Democratic friendly view of the data was waiting for amplification. Reporters (many of whom are as thoughtful as pig snot) internalized the sales pitch that they heard first & loudest. Far too often, our side comes in second place in a two person axe fight. It does not have to happen and that’s not on them – it’s on us.

    Any example forgets that the MEDIA not the political party decides what to print – and the US media is not that wonderful independent pillar of democracy that they claim to be. They will ALWAYS give the GOP side – first and loudly. They do not apologize when the GOP story is wrong.

  179. 179
    jl says:

    @jheartney: I agree. To the extent that the GOP’s Clinton impeachment strategy did work, it worked through the spooked, and bad, decisions made by Gore.

    Who are the bigshots in the Democratic Party who will spook like Gore? Obama? Hillary Clinton? Biden? I don’t think any of them. After the Clinton impeachment, even though Clinton was considered more personally untrustworthy, he was still considered politically trustworthy, and he should have been used more in the Gore campaign.

    That will be true for Obama and Biden in 2016. And if another candidate beats Hillary in the primary, why should a BS political impeachment spook that person?

    So,OK the GOP think this worked once, so now they think it is an ACME Automated Election Win machine (patent pending). Good luck with that.

    Edit: and remember if there is an impeachment, there will be a very vigorous defense put on in the Senate, and the GOP Congress will not look good on any of these bogus impeachable issues. And the GOP driven media won’t be able to sweep the defense under the rug, since a trial would still be a major focus of public interest (though maybe not the fourth of fifth time the GOP tries down the road in the 2020s)

  180. 180
    jl says:

    @TS: I’m not too worried about GOP or GOP sympathetic media pushing stupid and ignorant and innumerate BS on wonky economic stories. I think people make voting decisions based as much on what is going on in their personal lives as much as what they perceive to be the general good of economic policy for the country, or reported effects of economic policy.

    So, a person who is hanging onto a job they hate, or wants to move, or start a small business, and finds they can do that because of the ACA, will look at the ACA favorably. And they will look on any GOPer who wants to take it away unfavorably. Some old news story about some incomprehensible job numbers gobbledygook written ten months ago won’t be a big factor.

    This worked against the GOP back in Bush I days when Bush I thought he didn;t have to look beyond topline economic numbers to see how the average Joe and Josephine were doing. And Bush I thought educating the typical voter on what his economic and campaign advisers thought that topline economic numbers meant, would be enough to get economic issues off the plate for the election. And Bush I lost, mostly on economic issues.

  181. 181
    debbie says:

    @Cassidy:

    I think you’ve screwed up Erin’s premise.

  182. 182
    James E. Powell says:

    @Kay:

    People hate Congress. They really do.

    And that shows the success of what Chuck Todd calls messaging. The problem isn’t the congress, it’s the Republicans in the house and senate. The Democrats are to be blamed & cursed for their continued failure to make this clear.

    Republican messaging blames “Washington” or “Liberals” but their audience understands those two words to mean the same thing: the people who want to raise you taxes, give money to the [insert epithet], take your guns, eliminate God, Christmas, and football prayers, and otherwise destroy freedom.

    The Obama and the Democratic leadership’s adamant refusal to acknowledge and name an opponent makes their election campaigns much harder to sell. Campaigns have to be about Why do we need to vote? and Why do we need to vote for you?

    The Republicans’ answers are unhinged and untrue, but they do not lack for clarity: because these are your enemies and we will save you from them. The Democratic answers? Their candidates almost never agree on the answers.

  183. 183
    Steve from Antioch says:

    Unlike you, most Teabagging nuts know they need 2/3 of the Senate to get a conviction.

  184. 184
    LongHairedWeirdo says:

    I’m sure I’m not the first to say this, but I kind of wish they *would* impeach. There are a lot of people who might be pissed off at the President for X_reason or Y_Reason, but I suspect that a good 65+% will not believe him to be guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. A Republican House impeaching the President might well be the final straw that breaks the back of the camel (preparatory to their swallowing it after straining the gnat). The country does not need the distraction, but it does need something to change.

  185. 185
    TS says:

    @Mandalay:

    Dunn’s lawyer is hopeless. Dunn is fucked.

    Dunn did it all by himself – his lawyer didn’t fire shots into a vehicle because loud music.

  186. 186
    Shazza says:

    @karen: I do feel like they keep saying hyperbolic things to excite one of their racist moron gun nuts to do just that. And then they’d step back and go ‘huh? What? It was just a lone nut!’

  187. 187
    Corner Stone says:

    @GHayduke (formerly lojasmo):

    And in this scenario, we would have had NO UI, NO SNAP, and NO budget.

    Normally I don’t bother with your pathetic answers, because you’re just a simple.
    But, in this case you’re so far wrong no one can even bother to defend how badly wrong you are.
    There IS NO FUCKING UI EXTENSION YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKER.
    And, in a slightly calmer tone, SNAP WAS CUT BY ALMOST $20B DOLLARS YOU FUCKING FUCK. $11B in the budget deal + $9B in the Farm Bill.
    And guess what the budget deal does, you simple fucking ass?
    That’s right, it locks in sequester level funding BELOW THE PAUL RYAN BUDGET PLAN.
    Now, how about you go fuck yourself.

  188. 188
    Cain says:

    If this happens, there will be a reckoning. I don’t think Republicans will like the backlash. Obama has done nothing wrong but execute his duties as required in the constitution.

    What will happen is a lot of investigations looking for anything, ANYTHING. They are going to be wasting tax payer money and I hope that it will make an impression on just about everyone that they will be wasting their time doing this instead of trying to help people.

  189. 189
    Cain says:

    @James E. Powell:

    I’m sorry, but no messaging can happen if the press/media is wired for Republican rule. Your basic political shows are completely chock full of Republicans appearing constantly spinning everything their way.

    The reason is that these guys are a train wreck and people like to watch train wrecks. It’s great for business to have Republicans show up. Democrats are boring, talking about policies and other shit that bores people. Republicans are like guests on Jerry Springer.

  190. 190
    TS says:

    @jl: I do worry that 90% of the media stories are pro the GOP and woe betide the democrats. One or two stories may not matter – EVERY story does matter. This never ending tirade is what lost the house in 2010 & they are trying every trick in the book to do it again.

  191. 191
    aimai says:

    @The Raven on the Hill: Uh, this is nuts, you know? I have two “young women” in my house–Obama has been the greatest president of their young lives. They don’t remember Bush but what they do know about him is that they will never, ever, ever vote for a Republican. Thats two out of two teenagers in one household. Thats girls. Why? Because there is no “young woman” in this country who doesn’t plan on using birth control at some point, and needing affordable health care. None. Among other issues.

  192. 192
    liberal says:

    @Roger Moore: exactly. I’m amazed how many people don’t seem to understand this.

  193. 193
    pluky says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPad Mini): You beat me to it.

  194. 194
    Cervantes says:

    @The Raven on the Hill:

    But how do you persuade young people? How do you persuade young women? They’ve grown up in a depression and watched the Democrats not even fight.

    How many young people do you know? Do they complain about the Democrats? What do you tell them in response?

  195. 195
    AxelFoley says:

    @rk:

    What are they going to impeach him for? With Clinton, there was a special prosecutor and multiple investigations. Clinton did lie to the grand Jury about his affair so they had that shred to hang on to. They’ve investigated Obama for years and come up with nothing. A prosecutor has to at least come up with a charge in order to proceed. If they could have they’d have already passed articles of impeachment.If they had found anything on Benghazi we’d have had a trial in the senate by now. Sure shot failure has never deterred them before, just look at how many times they’ve tried to repeal Obamacare, or the fiasco over the debt ceiling. There is nothing that they can do to Obama, because Obama, even in an unconscious state is smarter than this entire republican congress and senate on its best days. Plus this is not the 1990s anymore where people are forced to listen to the idiot media. Even then impeachment was hugely unpopular, despite all the pro republican coverage at the time.

    Thank you. Not only does no one ask the GOP and their media lackeys what charges do they have against the President, too many people on the left buy into this “They’re gonna impeach Obama if they win in 2014!” bullshit without thinking of about they reasons why they can’t or won’t, which you so brilliantly pointed out.

  196. 196
    AxelFoley says:

    @Anybodybuther2016:

    @rk: PBO is clean. They know it and the majority of Americans know it. They can talk all the shit they want to their dumbass base but they know better than to try to impeach him.

    Bingo. There’s no–NO–dirt on President Obama. Seriously, folks, if there was anything they could get him on, don’t you think it would have come out by now?

  197. 197
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @AxelFoley: while I don’t think the GOP will be stupid enough to impeach the Pres., the real standard wfro what is an impeachable offense is that it is whatever a simple majority of the House decides it is. Presidenting while blatantly BLACK could be enough for this crowd.

  198. 198
    DTOzone says:

    @The Raven on the Hill

    :But how do you persuade young people? How do you persuade young women? They’ve grown up in a depression and watched the Democrats not even fight. It is no wonder that both parties are unpopular.

    There are these things in polls called cross tabs and if you look at then, you’ll find that even though both parties are unpopular, Democrats are actually popular with young voters.

    They don’t vote because it’s not high on their list of priorities, even if they support the candidate or issue on the ballot. Hard to change that.

    Bill de Blasio ran a winning campaign last year for mayor that practically incited orgasms among the professional left and young people STILL didn’t show up to vote in NYC.

  199. 199
    DTOzone says:

    @The Raven on the Hill: Whose your House member?

  200. 200
    DTOzone says:

    @James E. Powell:

    The Obama and the Democratic leadership’s adamant refusal to acknowledge and name an opponent makes their election campaigns much harder to sell.

    On the other hand, look how much demagoguing Democrats take when they DO say these things and DON’T act cordial. Remember the blasting editorials and opinion columns when Obama said a mean thing about Republicans?

    The point is, doing that is pointless if people don’t want to see that reality, and the problem is they really don’t. Forcing to contend with the reality that Republicans are treasonous is not something Americans are going to be willing to do.

    Instead they become complacent and accept the “both sides do it” narrative and fighting Democrats plays into that.

    I’m not saying they shouldn’t fight, I’m saying it’s not the Panacea the left thinks it is. Liberals may like to hear Republicans getting owned, the rest of the country wants jobs.

  201. 201

    @DTOzone: I’d rather not id my district, but he’s an old liberal, and he’s really great. Unfortunately, he’s in his 70s and won’t last forever.

  202. 202

    @DTOzone: “There are these things in polls called cross tabs and if you look at then, you’ll find that even though both parties are unpopular, Democrats are actually popular with young voters. They don’t vote because it’s not high on their list of priorities, even if they support the candidate or issue on the ballot. Hard to change that.”

    Guy, how popular are the Dems if young voters won’t turn out for them? To get people to turn out, it isn’t enough to be sort of OK. You’ve got to be inspiring and, well, the Democratic record for the past decade just isn’t. Part of this is Republican obstruction, but only part of it. The Dem leadership just doesn’t seem to have have any fight in them. It’s not like there’s nothing to fight for, but the Dems aren’t fighting, at least not the ones in charge of the party. I wrote to several of my elected reps: “You could have the whole damn country on your side if you would just stand up.” And I can only wonder why they don’t. Electing Obama was a great thing, but Obama himself? Too damn conservative.

    I figure in 2020 or so we’re going to see a change, but the next six years promise to be hard indeed.

  203. 203
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Erin:

    You change that one little fact, that impeachment requires a 2/3 majority, and the entire central premise of your article falls apart.

    Impeachment requires a simple majority in the House; conviction requires a 2/3rds majority in the Senate.

    You can be impeached and found not guilty — that was how Clinton’s turned out. It was an unsuccessful impeachment, but it was an impeachment. Impeachment is the indictment, not the verdict.

  204. 204
    Radio One says:

    stop listening to NPR and MSNBC, you will drive yourself crazy.

  205. 205
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @The Raven on the Hill: Did you actually look at the cross tabs? Or are you just wanking? I am willing to venture a guess.

  206. 206
    karen says:

    Am I the only one that wants to slap Joe Biden with his flirtation with the idea of running for President and telling the media about it?

  207. 207
    taylormattd says:

    @BGinCHI: “@The Raven on the Hill: You are right. We should not have compromised.

    We should have……what?”

    He will tell you the Democrats should have Bully-pulpit-executive-ordered louder.

  208. 208
    DTOzone says:

    @The Raven on the Hill:

    Guy, how popular are the Dems if young voters won’t turn out for them? To get people to turn out, it isn’t enough to be sort of OK. You’ve got to be inspiring and, well, the Democratic record for the past decade just isn’t. Part of this is Republican obstruction, but only part of it. The Dem leadership just doesn’t seem to have have any fight in them. It’s not like there’s nothing to fight for, but the Dems aren’t fighting, at least not the ones in charge of the party. I wrote to several of my elected reps: “You could have the whole damn country on your side if you would just stand up.” And I can only wonder why they don’t. Electing Obama was a great thing, but Obama himself? Too damn conservative.

    Which explains how young people turned out in 2012? Because Obama is too damn conservative?

    You either did not read what I wrote or completely misinterpreted it. Even Democrats who do INSPIRE people don’t get youth to turn out (see DeBlasio,Bill) The only one who has is Obama and as you’ve mentioned, he’s hardly a fighter.

    The point is young voters APPROVE of the job Democrats and the President are doing, which means they’re inspired enough to say they’re doing a good job. But they STILL won’t vote expect in presidential years.

    Remember, Democrats won more votes in House races in 2012, and still only won 201 seats.

  209. 209
    DTOzone says:

    @taylormattd:

    He will tell you the Democrats should have Bully-pulpit-executive-ordered louder.

    I mean the President has very clearly said he would use more executive orders, and will probably get impeached for it.

    Where’s the left backing him up?

  210. 210
    Erin says:

    @Mnemosyne: I was clearly talking about a successful impeachment attempt. Obviously the House could bring impeachment proceedings at any point, but we’re specifically discussing the Senate vote to convict.

    But I’m nominating you as soonergrunt’s editor.

  211. 211
    Death Panel Truck says:

    @The Raven on the Hill: I live in Washington, dimwit. Do you honestly think I (and a lot of other people here) don’t know you’re talking about Jim McDermott?

  212. 212
    GHayduke (formerly lojasmo) says:

    @Corner Stone:

    You’re a very pleasant person@Soonergrunt:

    Seriously, how is this allowed to persist?

  213. 213
    Jebediah, RBG says:

    @jl:

    And the GOP driven media won’t be able to sweep the defense under the rug, since a trial would still be a major focus of public interest

    Catapulting the propaganda truth past the Village media gatekeepers could be an extra bonus, beyond the general disgust with the GOP that impeachment would bring. I could see that as maybe, possibly, generating some negative coat-tails for some races.

  214. 214
    DavidTC says:

    If Obama is impeached alone, that leaves Biden charge, and accomplishes literally nothing for the GOP, except for sabotaging 2016. (Biden could do a hilarious ‘fuck you’ by refusing to nominate anyone except Obama as VP.)

    I don’t want them to still have a majority in the House in 2014, and I certainly don’t want them to have a super-majority in the Senate, but if that *did* happen, I would *love* to watch them impeach the first black president for no reason at all, accomplish nothing since Biden would take over, and shoot themselves in the face.

    Now, they could impeach Biden and Obama at the same time (Well, not really, depending on how you read the constitution. But they could certainly impeach Biden first, then impeach Obama without appointing a VP.), but considering that Biden literally is not in charge of anything, there’s nothing that would slightly give any legal justification to impeach him, unless they can come up with something from his past, and if it’s not out there now, it is unlikely to ever come out.

    So that would basically destroy them as a political party.

  215. 215
    Corner Stone says:

    @GHayduke (formerly lojasmo): You are a deeply stupid person.
    Argue against the facts of where we are. You can’t. So you whinge off and ask for Daddy to protect you.

Comments are closed.