Crazy Lady Wants Attention

The Wasilla wingnut is still in peak form:

Sarah Palin on Tuesday joined a growing chorus of Republicans calling for the impeachment of President Obama, writing in a Breitbart op-ed that the influx of young illegal immigrants over the southern border “is the last straw that makes the battered wife say, ‘no mas.’ ”

Mixed/careless metaphors aside, this is nothing but bad news for Republicans — especially four months until the 2014 election.

Palin is hardly the first GOP politician to raise the issue of impeachment over the past couple years. Others include Sens. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Reps. Blake Farenthold (R-Tex.), Kerry Bentivolio (R-Mich.), Michael Burgess (R-Tex.), Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.), former congressmen Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) and Allen West (R-Fla.), and the South Dakota Republican Party. Not all of these folks called for Obama’s impeachment directly, but all of them suggested that it is or should be on the table.

What none of these folks have, though, is a national following. That’s where Palin comes in. She’s the first Republican of any significant national stature to make this call. And she’s the kind of figure who could potentially recruit others to the cause — people who will want to be heard. Palin surely doesn’t carry the kind of weight she once did in the GOP, but she still has a significant tea party following and is highly popular among the conservative base.

If a significant pro-impeachment portion of the conservative base does materialize — and that’s a big “if” — it will put Republican lawmakers in the unenviable position of responding to questions about whether they, too, agree with the idea of impeachment.

Thanks, John McCain!

117 replies
  1. 1
    dmsilev says:

    Does she realize that even if Obama is impeached and convicted, that doesn’t mean that she and McCain get the White House?

  2. 2
    Hunter Gathers says:

    I wonder which Very Serious Person will validate Palin’s word salad.

  3. 3

    ” … writing in a Breitbart op-ed….”

    ’nuff said.

    Why do we keep paying attention to these idiots.

  4. 4
    gocart mozart says:

    Reposted from the thread down below because it’s more on point here.

    “last straw that makes the battered wife say, “no mas.”

    I think what it means is that Sarah was making pancakes and she got some of the batter on herself hence “battered wife” and then Todd exclaims “OMG, we’re out of bendy straws!” which causes Sarah to respond in mournful sadness “No mas?” At least that’s my best guess.
    http://gawker.com/5516572/sara.....uxe-hotels
    See also this: http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblo.....-tradition

  5. 5
    Kropadope says:

    @Hunter Gathers: She said it, now it must be taken seriously by all who are Very Serious.

  6. 6
    Citizen Alan says:

    Personally, it always pleases me to see a reference to Breitbart because it’s a reminder that the son of a whore is dead and rotting in hell.

  7. 7
    Violet says:

    @gocart mozart:

    think what it means is that Sarah was making pancakes and she got some of the batter on herself hence “battered wife” and then Todd exclaims “OMG, we’re out of bendy straws!” which causes Sarah to respond in mournful sadness “No mas?” At least that’s my best guess.

    As if. Sarah Palin wouldn’t be making pancakes because Sarah Palin doesn’t do work. Cooking is work. Todd wouldn’t be there to say anything because they essentially don’t live together anymore–she’s in Arizona most of the time and he’s in Alaska.

    Best guess is her ghostwriter wrote the piece. Sarah might or might not know what’s in it.

  8. 8
    Cervantes says:

    “Crazy Lady Wants Attention” — and what do we think about those who keep obliging?

  9. 9
    AkaDad says:

    Please proceed, half-term Governor.

  10. 10
    LAC says:

    How’s that dummy bitchy thing working for you, GOP?

  11. 11
    LAC says:

    How’s that dummy bitchy thing working for you, GOP?

  12. 12
    Cassidy says:

    Hehehehehe….battered Sarah Palin. Sounds like porn.

  13. 13
    KG says:

    @Southern Beale: because a significant portion of the electorate still takes them seriously… so we have to at least pay attention to them so as not to be surprised by the stupid.

  14. 14
    Iowa Old Lady says:

    Again, it occurs to me that these people don’t know it takes 2/3 of the Senate to convict, so the GOP “taking” the Senate is irrelevant (to this, at least).

  15. 15
    Amir Khalid says:

    As I understand the order of succession, should the Republicans somehow manage to impeach and convict Obama and Biden of something, the Speaker of the House would become President. Do they like or trust John Böhner enough to give him that office? Or are they planning to ditch him as well, by some other means?

  16. 16
    KG says:

    @dmsilev: look, a grifter’s gotta grift and that’s about the only thing she’s been good at… and I’ve often been told you only can do what you know how to do well and that’s be you, be what you’re like, be like yourself, for Sarah, that’s grifting.

    the real life politicians who actually have at least a theoretical understanding that they have an obligation to actually govern in concert with other elected and appointed officials know that this is stupid. but the political equivalent of people who call in to sports talk radio shows, and go to championship parades in the new championship t-shirt and hat, see impeachment and obstruction as a scoreboard thing. that’s why they got mad when Obama “spiked the football.” they want to do a touchdown dance and spike the ball now.

  17. 17
    Karen in GA says:

    Is she really that influential with anyone other than Breitbart readers and the bloggers that mock them, though?

  18. 18
    pseudonymous in nc says:

    The House of GOP Crazy could impeach Obama tomorrow if it wanted. Straight majority. No need to fuck about, just put articles to the floor “because reasons” and vote on it.

    They’re just happy to tease and appease the base, like Queen Grifter of the Mooses.

  19. 19
    Chris says:

    @Iowa Old Lady:

    That’s whay makes it perfect. The Republicans get to try, the mean Democrats shoot them down. They maintain credibility with their base without having to actually accomplish things.

  20. 20
    satby says:

    Some days I wonder when the shooting war will start once they realize an impeachment won’t succeed and will mean a landslide for the next Dem running for president.

  21. 21
    SatanicPanic says:

    @satby: They’ve been shooting themselves in the feet for the last six years

  22. 22
    Hill Dweller says:

    I see the Beltway and some local media are already calling the influx of young immigrants Obama’s Katrina. I think this is PO’s 9th(?) Katrina since taking office.

  23. 23
    Kay says:

    I think they definitely should go forward with this :)

    It’s what comes after shutting down the government. right? That was my understanding.

  24. 24
    Amir Khalid says:

    Off-topic (sorry) but if any of the women here on Balloon Juice finds herself being wooed by a charming Nigerian man based in Malaysia, IT’S A SCAM!!

  25. 25
    dmsilev says:

    @Amir Khalid: That’s right. The sequence goes President->Vice President->Speaker of the House->President Pro Tem of the Senate. From there, it’s Cabinet Secretaries in the order in which their departments were founded (State is first). Senate Pres Pro Tem would be amusing; that’s a basically ceremonial post traditionally held by the most senior member of the Senate majority. It’s Pat Leahy right now; if the Republicans take the Senate, it’ll be Orrin Hatch followed by Thad Cochran.

  26. 26
    SatanicPanic says:

    Anyone remember how in 2006 the media kept asking the Democratic leadership if they would impeach Bush and they all kept saying no? Anyone think prominent Republicans will have that kind of discipline?

  27. 27
    D58826 says:

    Well since we are talking about crazy, here is the Texas entrant to the dumbest congressman awards (yes I know a very crowed field) Louie Gohmert

    In the end, they have said that they want to turn Texas blue, they want to turn America blue,” he said. “And if you bring in hundreds of thousands or millions of people and give them the ability to vote and tell them — as Quico Canseco said, he had illegals in his district that were told, ‘If you want to keep getting the benefits, you have to vote, and President Obama’s lawyers are not going to allow them to ask for an ID, so go vote or you’re going to lose the benefits you’re getting now.’ That drives people to vote and it will ensure that Republicans don’t ever get elected again.”

    That crafty devil Obama and from Louies mouth to the FSM’ ear – ‘That drives people to vote and it will ensure that Republicans don’t ever get elected again’.

  28. 28
    Roger Moore says:

    @dmsilev:

    Does she realize that even if Obama is impeached and convicted, that doesn’t mean that she and McCain get the White House?

    This isn’t about accomplishing anything positive; it’s about appeasing the wingnut id. It’s about showing that boy in the White House who’s in charge.

  29. 29
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    I was under the impression that the teahadists were going to bring the articles of impeachment and dare the rest of the House not to vote for them. To me, it isn’t “if” it’s “when.”

  30. 30
    Roger Moore says:

    @D58826:

    (yes I know a very crowed field)

    The crowded field is for runner up; Rep. Gohmert has the title pretty well wrapped up.

  31. 31
    NotMax says:

    Each time she opens her yap an angel loses its wings.

  32. 32
    Davis X. Machina says:

    Look past this messenger and ask yourself, what would you do if it were Bernie Sanders, and the grounds advanced were extrajudicial killing, and the use of drones, and electronic surveillance, and invading Libya, and Chad, and Mali, and Jordan…

    Impeachment for executive overreach for me, but not for thee.

  33. 33
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    @Roger Moore:

    Not to mention being too busy with the important business of impeachment to produce their jobs or healthcare programs.

    ETA: “We’re at war with Obama. You wouldn’t let down your party in the middle of a war, would you?”

  34. 34
    Kay says:

    @D58826:

    That drives people to vote and it will ensure that Republicans don’t ever get elected again.”

    They’re “Politicians Against Voting”

    PAV

  35. 35
    SatanicPanic says:

    @Roger Moore: Gohmert might be historically stupid. I crown him DOAT (dumbest of all time)

  36. 36
  37. 37
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    @Roger Moore:
    Gohmert may be more stupid than Doug Feith.

  38. 38
    MikeJ says:

    This is off topic, but I just saw the logo for the Republican running in WA-09. Wow. Just. Wow.

    A flaming great seal of the US and all the text on the page in Star Trek type (SF Fourche).

  39. 39
    gbear says:

    @Kay: Obama’s fault!! Inpeach!!

  40. 40
    Karen in GA says:

    Okay, either both my posts disappeared or they’ll both show up. Whoops either way.

  41. 41
    JCT says:

    @Kay: Exactly – seems to me that this impeachment “thing” worked out so well for them in the 90″s. C’mon Sarah, you halfwit – just throw us in that briar patch.

    Hell, might even get the Dems to the polls in Nov.

  42. 42
    Violet says:

    @MomSense: Those were fantastic threads. A completely geeky thrill for me when Paul Krugman used one of my suggestions to title his postabout our threads.

  43. 43
    MomSense says:

    @Violet:

    Violet you were on fire in those threads!!

  44. 44
    AkaDad says:

    Liberals wanted to impeach Bush for trivial things like authorizing torture. Conservatives want to justifiably impeach Obama for being a Democrat.

  45. 45
    Citizen_X says:

    That’s where Palin comes in. She’s the first Republican of any significant national stature to make this call.

    AAHHHA HAHAHAHAHA HHHHAAAAAAAA! HO HO, *wheeze* *cough* Palin, “stature!” Please proceed, assholes.

    @MikeJ:

    A flaming great seal of the US

    Who does he think he is, Katniss Everdeen?

  46. 46
    Roger Moore says:

    @MikeJ:
    I think it’s trying to mimic the look of the Hunger Games movies. That’s the reason for the burning logo, and the icons look like the ones from that series.

  47. 47
    Dolly Llama says:

    @KG: Props for the They Might Be Giants reference.

  48. 48
    Helen says:

    @Iowa Old Lady: I actually read some of the comments (yeah I know)They know it takes 2/3 for conviction (kinda – they’re a bit confused) but a number of them think that they have found the solution: You see, because Harry Reid changed the rules on confirming judges then if the Rs take the senate the new R majority leader can simply change the rules. They don’t know they would need to change the constitution.

  49. 49
    raven says:

    @Helen: They don’t give a shit if it can be done or not. It’s fucking bullshit and their drooling followers are happy to cheer them on.

  50. 50
    Iowa Old Lady says:

    @Helen: You read some of the comments? Holy crow. You’re a stronger person than I am.

    Also, for people who talk about the constitution all the time and whip it out of their pockets, they know very little.

  51. 51
    Kay says:

    @JCT:

    Clinton’s impeachment had sex, too. What is this one about? He didn’t stop the children from crossing the border? You don’t have to answer. It doesn’t matter. I know that.

  52. 52
    JPL says:

    @Iowa Old Lady: You must forgive them because it took awhile to read the first and second amendment.

  53. 53
    Kay says:

    @Helen:

    That’s what it’s really about. They want them to think if they take the Senate they can remove the President.

  54. 54
    Pogonip says:

    @Amir Khalid: Well, NOW you tell us.

  55. 55
    Pogonip says:

    @NotMax: Each time she opens her yap an angel loses its lunch.

  56. 56
    Keith G says:

    @dmsilev:

    Does she realize that even if Obama is impeached and convicted, that doesn’t mean that she and McCain get the White House?

    What she realizes is that by voicing such gobbledygook she gets more face time, more links, and at least a few more chances to pretend that she is historically relevant and not hysterically useless.

    Unless she starts shitting gold bricks, I would rather not see her name on my device screens again.

  57. 57
    danimal says:

    If we’re lucky, another high-profile GOPer will join the parade in the next day or two. It’ll be the political equivalent of playing with matches on a hot windy day in a drought-stricken forest. They won’t be able to contain the fire damage.

    Every summer, teh crayzee comes out from the conservosphere, impeachment will quickly become their new cause and Boehner, McConnell et al won’t be able to keep the flames from crossing the fire breaks.

  58. 58
    Roger Moore says:

    @Dolly Llama:
    Sarah Palin is having a wonderful time, but she’d rather be whistling in the dark.

  59. 59
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Karen in GA: There are a few Villagers that do pay attention to her if only to attract the demented eyeballs of her fan base. Ratings are ratings, no matter how cretinous the audience.

  60. 60
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    FYWP

  61. 61
    Donut says:

    @Davis X. Machina:

    Pffffffft. That’s all war-on-tear-a and olde-timey Muslim-y brown-people killin’, so nobody gives two fucks about that shit, let alone a single fuck. No point in even bringing up that stuff.

  62. 62
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @gocart mozart:

    Sarah was making pancakes

    Sarah’s pancakes would be burnt to a cinder on one side and raw batter on the other, because Sarah would have wandered off halfway through the job.

  63. 63
    Donut says:

    @Davis X. Machina:

    Also, too: with that comment, your O-bot card has officially been revoked. Please surrender your credentials at the door on your way out. Kthanxbai.

  64. 64
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @Amir Khalid:

    The mostly Nigerian conmen, who enter Malaysia on student visas, take advantage of the country’s good Internet infrastructure to prey on lonely, middle-aged women,

    I may be lonely, but I’ll be damned if I’m middle-aged!

  65. 65
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    Thanks, John McCain!

    The main reason why McCain should not die peacefully in his sleep.

  66. 66
    raven says:

    @SiubhanDuinne: Man, I got lost in deepest dark Gwinnett on Saturday and I never thought I’d get back to Athens.

  67. 67
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @raven:

    Us Gwinetians know, the county can be Big and Scary.

  68. 68
    Roger Moore says:

    @SiubhanDuinne:
    Where would you like your intertube delivered?

  69. 69
    maya says:

    @Hill Dweller:

    I see the Beltway and some local media are already calling the influx of young immigrants Obama’s Katrina.

    Actually, this is more like Obama’s Fukushima. Uncontrollable influx of immigrants oozing over the border polluting America’s racial purity.

  70. 70
    Ricky says:

    Palin’s hot.

  71. 71
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    @Ricky:
    Why do I get the feeling that you’d fuck a snake if someone held its head for you?

  72. 72
    Mike in NC says:

    So this must mean Sarah has a new book due out for Christmas?

  73. 73
    David Koch says:

    @Ricky: you must be thinking of Julianne Moore

  74. 74
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Ricky: In a whore on Seventh Avenue sort of way.

  75. 75
    rikyrah says:

    the entire family is nothing but phucking vermin.

    …………….

    Did You Know That Antonin Scalia’s Son Is Sabotaging Wall Street Reform?
    Eugene Scalia is quietly freeing big banks from the rules meant to keep them from crashing the economy again.
    ——By Patrick Caldwell
    | July/August 2014 Issue

    Ambrose Bierce once quipped that a lawyer is one skilled in the circumvention of the law. By that definition, Eugene Scalia is a lawyer of extraordinary skill. In less than five years, the 50-year-old son of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has become a one-man scourge to the reformers who won a hard-fought battle to pass the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act to rein in the out-of-control financial sector. So far, he’s prevailed in three of the six suits he’s filed against the law, single-handedly slowing its rollout to a snail’s pace. As of May, a little more than half of the nearly four-year-old law’s rules had been finalized and another 25 percent hadn’t even been drafted. Much of that breathing room for Wall Street is thanks to Scalia, who has deployed a hyperliteral, almost absurdist series of procedural challenges to unnerve the bureaucrats charged with giving the legislation teeth.

    Scalia has “created this sense that we’re paralyzed, because if we write a rule we’re just going to be reversed,” says Lisa Donner, executive director of the watchdog group Americans for Financial Reform. The threat of more suits, she says, has “cast a real chill” over Wall Street regulators, particularly at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

    Scalia’s legal challenges hinge on a simple, two-decade-old rule: Federal agencies monitoring financial markets must conduct a cost-benefit analysis whenever they write a new regulation. The idea is to weigh “efficiency, competition, and capital formation” so that businesses and investors can anticipate how their bottom line might be affected. Sounds reasonable. But by recognizing that the assumptions behind these hypothetical projections can be endlessly picked apart, Scalia has found a remarkably effective way to delay key parts of the law from going into effect.

    Former Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) says Scalia and the big banks are attempting an end run around the law he coauthored: “These are ideologues who want to kill the rules. They can’t say they’re unconstitutional. They are doing this because it’s the only possible way to knock them out.” (Scalia declined to comment for this article.)

    http://www.motherjones.com/pol.....dodd-frank

  76. 76
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @maya: I’ve come to learn that the term “illegal alien” is a dog whistle for “ZOMG they’re brown!”

  77. 77
    David Koch says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: Lisa Ann (star of Who’s Nail’n Palin) is far better looking, plus she has a great sense of humor.

  78. 78
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:
    Whether someone uses “illegal alien” or “undocumented immigrant” is just as telling as the way people pronounced “Nicaragua” during the Reagan years. Those who pronounced the word properly were labeled by the Reagan-suckers as Com-symps who obviously hated America.

  79. 79
    David Koch says:

    @LOLGOP · 22h

    If you think fertilized eggs are people but refugee kids aren’t, you’re going to have to stop pretending your concerns are religious.

    3 day old zygotes are people. 3 year old Latinos are not.

  80. 80
    kdbart says:

    All this means is that the cash flow is running low at the Pakin household and they need a quick influx of cash to keep up the lifestyle. Must get back out there on the grift and fleece the rubes.

  81. 81
    Dolly Llama says:

    @Roger Moore: A woman came up to me and said “I’d like to close your mind”/With wrong ideas that appeal to you/Obama’s so unkind

  82. 82
    catclub says:

    @Higgs Boson’s Mate: The bill of particulars or whatever documents the charges will be interesting. Will it get beyond “Presidenting while Black”?

  83. 83
    Howard Beale IV says:

    @rikyrah: Actually, I blame Slick Willie for allowing himself to be rolled by Phil Gramm and repealing Glass-Stegal and signing GLBA and CFMA.

    For Those of you who are fans of Babylon 5, substitute Phil Gramm for Mr. Morden and enjoy.

    As far as Caribou Barbie is concerned, the sooner she’s ridiculed and attacked in the media for being the Whore of BabbleOn (or is it Babylon) that she is, the better.

  84. 84
    efgoldman says:

    @catclub:

    The bill of particulars or whatever documents the charges will be interesting.

    Impeachment is not a judicial process. The house can bring whatever (stupid) charges it wants, like getting a blowjob, for instance.

  85. 85
    catclub says:

    This is one of the first times I have seen a Good news for John McCain/Romney item that is actually labelled truthfully.

  86. 86
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @Donut: Either that stuff is just par for the presidential course, or there’s a hell of a lot of special pleading going on. That level of executive high-handedness is either impeachable, or not, depending on the party of the president doing it, apparently.

    Team spirit is good — in team sports.

  87. 87
    Roger Moore says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    I’ve come to learn that the term “illegal alien” is a dog whistle for “ZOMG they’re brown!”

    Nah. Calling people “illegal aliens” just means you’re a bit behind the times. The dog whistle for “ZOMG! They’re brown!” is calling them “illegals”.

  88. 88
    karen says:

    @David Koch:

    It’s funny you said that because now the Teahadi are claiming that these are not “children.”

  89. 89
    Mnemosyne says:

    @karen:

    Do they all have calves the size of cantaloupes?

  90. 90
    karen says:

    @Davis X. Machina:

    Then you’d have every single President impeached. The way I see it, I’m not happy about everything he does but I’m happy with more that he does than what I don’t like. When you can find me a candidate who can win the Presidency who won’t ever torture then I’ll listen to you. Instead you decided you wanted to punish the Democrats and stayed home….

    ….and did so much damage by allowing the Tea Party invasion that can’t be undone because of gerrymandering.

    Every women who died because she couldn’t get an abortion is on your head. Every right that has been taken from women is your fault. Every voting right removed from minorities is on your hands. You wanted to teach the Democrats a lesson but all you’ve done is scorch the earth. You PUMA firebaggers are no better than Teahadis.

  91. 91
    efgoldman says:

    @karen:

    now the Teahadi are claiming that these are not “children.”

    Somebody hired every small person in Central America to walk to Texas?
    No joke: lots are dieing on the way. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/im.....o-america/

  92. 92
    karen says:

    @efgoldman:

    Are they mules?

  93. 93
    Howard Beale IV says:

    @efgoldman: BBC is also reporting the same kind of situation.

  94. 94
    chopper says:

    “In spite of the fact that obummer has deported more people than any president in history, he must be impeached for not deporting enough people”

  95. 95
    Kay says:

    @efgoldman:

    The house can bring whatever (stupid) charges it wants,

    I personally feel they destroyed impeachment as a mechanism or process the last time so I don’t consider it a credible threat. I don’t know what this does to John Boehner’s lawsuit, either. Suing the President is now the moderate, centrist position, I guess.

  96. 96
    efgoldman says:

    @Kay:

    I don’t consider it a credible threat.

    It’s actually a threat to the Republicans. Weeping Cheetoh and a few other House veterans remember how well the last one went over.

    I don’t know what this does to John Boehner’s lawsuit

    The suit will likely never be filed. It’s a way for Weeping Cheetoh to placate the frothing mouth breathers just enough.

  97. 97
    RaflW says:

    @Kay:

    I don’t know what this does to John Boehner’s lawsuit

    It makes him look like a twerp, a piker, only interested in inflicting a flesh wound.
    Go full-metal-impeachment, whisky-man! DO it!!

  98. 98
    Lurking Canadian says:

    @karen: DXM can defend himself, but I strongly suspect he’s snarking here.

  99. 99
    James E. Powell says:

    It’s more like Corporate Press/Media Still Love Giving Crazy Lady Attention

    Who is she but the political equivalent of one of the Gabor sisters circa 1970?

  100. 100
    catclub says:

    @karen:

    When you can find me a candidate who can win the Presidency who won’t ever torture then I’ll listen to you.

    I suspect Jimmy Carter would like a word.

  101. 101
    Kay says:

    @RaflW:

    Hah! He can’t win, can he? He just comes up the lawsuit idea and now Sarah Palin has upped the ante. Has this ever happened before? Has the loser of a presidential ticket ever stuck around for 8 years complaining every single day, with no actual job? I think it’s unprecedented. This not-job is the longest she’s ever stuck with anything.

  102. 102
    GHayduke (formerly lojasmo) says:

    @Davis X. Machina:

    Considering none of those things are impeachable offences, while I wouldn’t accuse him of grifting, I would probably call him a clueless nattering douche.

  103. 103
    FromTheBackOfTheRoom says:

    @Southern Beale:

    Preach It !

  104. 104
    Donut says:

    @karen:

    I know you’re addressing someone else, but that person was responding to my snark, so it seems fair to respond to you.

    Personally, I vote in every single election and I am proudly a life-long member of the Democratic Party. I’m a two-time Obama voter for President, and a one-time Obama voter for the Senate. I gave money to the guy, and lots of it. I would never punch a ticket that was not fully pro choice, and pro voting rights. I believe in the small “d” concept of democratic values, which is why I am fucking Democrat: human, civil and citizenship rights being to and should be protected for the greatest number of people possible. Full stop.

    Now that I have, ahem, established my bona fides, let’s revisit this idea that anyone who is dissatisfied with the way we have let the Executive branch amok in this country is a Firebagger and a PUMA. Puh-lease. Is it still 2009?

    Nope, I can fucking walk and chew gum at the same goddamn time. I can believe that Obama was/is the least worst choice in both 2008 and 2012, (and in 2004 when his best competiton for the Senate seat was Dan Hynes, who seemed/seems like a good guy, and who did a decent job as Comptroller of our fine state, but has all the political charisma of a cardboard box)

    Anyway, I snarked on Davis X’s original comment because for some people (as your comment seems to show, unless I’m misreading you, then I apologize), it’s strictly and decidedly unkosher to say that Obama has done little to rein in the abuse of Executive branch authority that we’ve been treated to in these last several decades.

    My issue with that lies in the fact that in 2008 he made quite the show of talkin about how he intended to do just that, and he deliberately drew a contrast between himself and the guy that preceded him the things that Davis X pointed to.

    So I guess what I’m rambling on about is that while our guy holds the office, Executive overreach is simply not a topic that we Democrats want to talk about, though we really could and really should, and with no ill effects on our electoral prospects. We should be having conversations about what our presidents do well, and what they suck at. Obama has been great on the balance, but has also sucked, sometimes. It is incontrovertible fact that he’s carried on some really reprehensible shit that his predecessors initiated. It’s okay to talk about that, and still support him. Swear to god, it’s possible to feel more than one thing about the guy. He’s human, and he is at the mercy of a lot of deep, dark pressures and forces in our culture that I can’t even begin to fathom, but damn, I’m allowed to say it when I don’t like something he’s doing.

    That’s all. Have a nice evening.

  105. 105
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Donut:

    Here’s one thing I’ll say (sort of) in Obama’s defense: if the executive branch is overreaching, it’s because Congress has allowed it. Unlike, say, Reagan and Iran/Contra, there is no evidence that Obama is going beyond the limits of the current law. The problem is that the current law sucks and is way too broad.

    So now what we have is a dilemma. Should Obama issue an executive order to curb his own executive power? Sure, he could do that, and we’d all feel real good, but executive orders are made to be reversed. The only way to make a change and make it stick is to make Congress do it, and they don’t want to, because they want the next Republican president to have all of those powers that Rand Paul is complaining Obama has.

    The only way to rein in the executive’s power is to have Congress do their fucking job and rein it in. Any temporary policy change that Obama makes is just that … temporary, and easily reversed by the next executive. So if you want the surveillance state to be reined in, we need a better Congress, not a better president.

  106. 106
    xenos says:

    @Mnemosyne: A better way to put it would be abdication of Congressional power. Split control of houses without comity or respect between them leads to Congress being mostly ineffective. Presidential power then fills up that vacuum. Partisan-based impeachment then becomes impossible to succeed.

    So why are Republicans bent on an impeachment they can’t win, even if they take a majority of the Senate? If you realize that the GOP is merely a source of material for the FoxNews and talk radio industry, then it makes sense. This is nothing good for the Republican party, but then again it is probably too late to save them.

    And the issues of the surveillance state are correctly put by you – without Congress working together as a whole, any President has free reign. And even a largely benevolent President is going to go too far much of the time. His job is to go as far as Congress will let him, and Congress won’t do anything because Congress, as an bicameral entity, does not really exist as a matter of exercising power is concerned.

  107. 107
    Mnemosyne says:

    @xenos:

    I think we pretty much agree. My argument is that pressuring Obama to restrict his own power is basically useless, because the power is still there, as duly granted by Congress, waiting for President Santorum or President Paul to scoop it up. Better to have Congress take that excess power away than to let each individual president decide how s/he wants to exploit it.

  108. 108
    David Koch says:

    @Donut: executive overreach? you mean like lying to Congress and secretly rejecting your enemy’s surrender so you can pass the 13th amendment?

    or do you mean illegally arming countries in secret, spying on countries we’re not a war with, holding secret trials, building hideous weapons without public and congressional consent, provoking another country into attacking you, firebombing civilian populations, and imprisoning citizens in concentration camps?

    we can talk about that.

  109. 109
    Fred says:

    @JCT: “Exactly – seems to me that this impeachment “thing” worked out so well for them in the 90″s. C’mon Sarah, you halfwit – just throw us in that briar patch.”

    It didn’t work out for the GOPers in the ’90s but it may have paved the way for Dubaya to pose as representing the more honorable party, shaving enough votes to kick the election to the SCOTUS for the alley-oop play.
    Never underestimate the deviousness of the Grifter’s Old Party. They know how to shamelessly spin the Big Lie. They’ve had plenty of practice ’cause it’s all they got.

  110. 110
    Sherparick says:

    The sad thing is that about 30% of the country agrees with her, they are so deep in their own derp and tribalism.

  111. 111
    WaterGirl says:

    @Donut: Really well stated.

  112. 112
    Sherparick says:

    @Donut: Yeah, you are right. As both JC, PK, and the guys and gals at LGM note, Obama is far from perfect, and he is not the second coming of FDR (of course FDR practically invented the modern surveillance state prepping for and fighting WWII, the Japanese-Americans being sent to concentration camps (by Executive Order no less!), and the compromises he made with neo-confederates Southern Democrats to get his program through was not perfect either, and he is still my beau ideal of a President). It is sometimes a short term electoral weakness in that we liberals are like cats being herded when it comes to supporting Democrats who we see have feet (and sometimes more) of clay, while the Republicans breathe a white heat of enthusiasm born of hatred and resentment and love of authoritarians for their leaders, but in the medium and long term we can correct or mistakes and errors. They can’t.

  113. 113
    Lurking Canadian says:

    @David Koch: Lincoln rejected a Southern surrender offer?

  114. 114
    Rob in CT says:

    @Lurking Canadian:

    Sort of. Their “surrender” offer was hardly unconditional. It was still political trouble for Lincoln if it got out, because there were plenty of Northern squishes who would’ve happily agreed to return to the 1860 status quo ante.

  115. 115
    LAC says:

    @karen: well, at least daaaavid can do this: http://youtu.be/gXZeq9eXAys

    And isn’t that what it is all about?

  116. 116
    David Koch says:

    @Sherparick:

    he is still my beau ideal of a President

    Here’s the handy work of your ideal president

  117. 117
    karen says:

    @Donut:

    I didn’t realize it was snark. It sounded like something srv and the resident PUMAs would say.

    Anyway, I snarked on Davis X’s original comment because for some people (as your comment seems to show, unless I’m misreading you, then I apologize), it’s strictly and decidedly unkosher to say that Obama has done little to rein in the abuse of Executive branch authority that we’ve been treated to in these last several decades.

    I don’t think that at all. Obama makes me pissed about a lot of things and like you, I voted for him as the lesser of two evils. I’m just very pragmatic. I know that what the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic and California calls Conservadem is liberal in Virginia downwards, the Midwest and the South and the West except for California. If I thought someone like Elizabeth Warren would win as the Dem candidate I would be so on board. But I don’t see it happening and I may have to hold my nose but I’ll vote for HRC.

Comments are closed.