Republican power brokers think Scott Walker just isn’t ready. Do they have a point?

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Au contraire; IMPEACHMENT it's the RIGHT thing to do.

Please tell me if you think impeachment could pass the House or Senate and on what grounds could Republicans impeach Obama.

[Bigun]

Republican power brokers think Scott Walker just isn’t ready

Translation: We are afraid we won't be able to control Scott Walker therefore he isn't ready!

[EC]

 

[massadvj]

mass wrote above:
[[ Whether Walker is ready or not is uncertain.  He is untested on the national stage.  What is more certain is that Jeb Bush is unelectable.  He polls at 15 points behind Hillary Clinton with 100 percent name recognition.  If the GOPe is really interested in winning, as opposed to raising money from well-heeled special interests, it had better find a better horse to back than Jeb.  He cannot win. ]]


Your comment illustrates that the GOPe may be nearly as delusional as are the democrats

Not delusional.  I think it is primarily driven by money.  The big corporate donors who depend on government to protect their interests want to make sure that the next president does nothing to dismantle the federal system.  Many of them really don't care whether Hillary or Jeb wins.  The two are interchangeable.  So they give money to both candidates and assume their investments will continue to fool people into thinking there is a dime's worth of difference between the parties.

This strategy has worked for the past seven presidential elections.  Why wouldn't it work now?

[olde north church]

He was playing to his audience and I thought did a VERY good job of it!

Jeb Bush on the other hand couldn't make a speech! Had to be "interviewed by Shawn Hannity to avoid a crowd revolt!

C-PAC?  They guy in the Revolutionary garb leading the "Bush Putsch" was ridiculous.

[libertybele]

Please tell me if you think impeachment could pass the House or Senate and on what grounds could Republicans impeach Obama.

It's not a matter of IF  impeachment could pass the House or Senate but a matter of what other option is left to rein this president in? Obama has defied/ignored judge's rulings, side-stepped Congress and has used overreach of power pretty much rending Congress (OUR elected officials) ineffective. What grounds?  You're joking right? 

...hmm... for starters Obama's (and Clinton for that matter) efforts to bring the US under the UNs Small Arms Treaty is a direct violation of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.  Kerry signed the treaty.  Illegal immigration -- amnesty via executive order...prohibiting ICE officers from enforcing existing laws...dumping thousand of illegal children into our neighborhoods...failed to defend American soil in Texas, Arizona, Florida; Mexican troops bringing drugs and illegals in (violating Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution).  Illegal moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.  Illegal campaign contributions.  Violations of War Powers Act.  Numerous scandals: Benghazi, Fast 'N Furious, IRS, VA., etc., etc.

Would you rather let this president continue on with his destruction when obviously 535 members of Congress, judges and the DOJ  have been unable to curtail his blatant abuse of power?  Yep, all focus is on the 2016 elections.  Anyone 100% confident that Obama will even step down?  Perhaps by EO he will repeal the 22nd amendment.  I being facetious here, and I know technically it's something he can't do ... but on the other hand did anyone think he would grant amnesty through EO, so what's to stop him from seeking a third term, or becoming "dictator in chief"? Better yet, who's going to stop him? 

IMPEACHMENT!!  It IS the RIGHT thing to do! 

[Formerly Once-Ler]

It's not a matter of IF  impeachment could pass the House or Senate but a matter of what other option is left to rein this president in? Obama has defied/ignored judge's rulings, side-stepped Congress and has used overreach of power pretty much rending Congress (OUR elected officials) ineffective. What grounds?  You're joking right? 

...hmm... for starters Obama's (and Clinton for that matter) efforts to bring the US under the UNs Small Arms Treaty is a direct violation of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.  Kerry signed the treaty.  Illegal immigration -- amnesty via executive order...prohibiting ICE officers from enforcing existing laws...dumping thousand of illegal children into our neighborhoods...failed to defend American soil in Texas, Arizona, Florida; Mexican troops bringing drugs and illegals in (violating Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution).  Illegal moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.  Illegal campaign contributions.  Violations of War Powers Act.  Numerous scandals: Benghazi, Fast 'N Furious, IRS, VA., etc., etc.

Would you rather let this president continue on with his destruction when obviously 535 members of Congress, judges and the DOJ  have been unable to curtail his blatant abuse of power?  Yep, all focus is on the 2016 elections.  Anyone 100% confident that Obama will even step down?  Perhaps by EO he will repeal the 22nd amendment.  I being facetious here, and I know technically it's something he can't do ... but on the other hand did anyone think he would grant amnesty through EO, so what's to stop him from seeking a third term, or becoming "dictator in chief"? Better yet, who's going to stop him? 

IMPEACHMENT!!  It IS the RIGHT thing to do!

Thank you for your response. 
Proceeding with impeachment when there is no way it will pass in the House or Senate is crazy.
The grounds you list for impeachment would be rejected by the voters.
I am 100% certain Obama will step down at the end of this term.
I predicted Obama would grant an EO amnesty on the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation.  I was off by 2 years

[libertybele]

Thank you for your response. 
Proceeding with impeachment when there is no way it will pass in the House or Senate is crazy.
The grounds you list for impeachment would be rejected by the voters.
I am 100% certain Obama will step down at the end of this term.
I predicted Obama would grant an EO amnesty on the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation.  I was off by 2 years

What is crazy is allowing this president to get away with what he is doing without trying to stop him.  Sorry, but I strongly disagree; I think impeachment would pass in the House and Senate and the short list (there is many more) that I gave you certainly qualifies:

..."
    "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." --US Constitution. Article II, Sec. 4.

    "... those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself." --Alexander Hamilton, March 7, 1788 in "The Federalist Papers : No. 65."

n 1970, Rep. Gerald R. Ford "defined impeachable offenses as 'whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.'"

What time frame he granted amensty by EO is irrelevant; it boils down to he did it. 

[evadR]

I'm certain impeachment would pass in the House.  They wouldn't take it up if those ducks weren't already lined up.
I am equally certain that the trial portion of the process would not result in conviction.  Last time I checked, the pubbies do not have a 2/3 majority.
I do not understand the rationale of people who think otherwise.   

[Luis Gonzalez]

I'm certain impeachment would pass in the House.  They wouldn't take it up if those ducks weren't already lined up.
I am equally certain that the trial portion of the process would not result in conviction.  Last time I checked, the pubbies do not have a 2/3 majority.
I do not understand the rationale of people who think otherwise.

There are a lot of people overtly impressed by empty symbolic gestures.

[massadvj]

I'm certain impeachment would pass in the House.  They wouldn't take it up if those ducks weren't already lined up.
I am equally certain that the trial portion of the process would not result in conviction.  Last time I checked, the pubbies do not have a 2/3 majority.
I do not understand the rationale of people who think otherwise.

I am not in favor of impeaching OPapaDoc, but I can see the rationale.  Even a loss creates a thorough investigation and public record that historians can judge on its merits, through the lens of time and history.  A generation down the road, as all the facts about this administration become known, people may well be asking why on earth the opposition party did nothing.

Still, impeachment carries far more negative political consequences than positive at this juncture.  Even if it is justified, it is foolish to pursue it, especially since there exists the possibility for a GOP sweep in 2016.

[evadR]

I'm certain impeachment would pass in the House.  They wouldn't take it up if those ducks weren't already lined up.
I am equally certain that the trial portion of the process would not result in conviction.  Last time I checked, the pubbies do not have a 2/3 majority.
I do not understand the rationale of people who think otherwise.

I am not in favor of impeaching OPapaDoc, but I can see the rationale.  Even a loss creates a thorough investigation and public record that historians can judge on its merits, through the lens of time and history.  A generation down the road, as all the facts about this administration become known, people may well be asking why on earth the opposition party did nothing.

Still, impeachment carries far more negative political consequences than positive at this juncture.  Even if it is justified, it is foolish to pursue it, especially since there exists the possibility for a GOP sweep in 2016.


I agree 100%, and just to make myself clear, I'm not against impeachment.
What I was saying is I don't understand the rationale of people who say it won't pass in the House.
And I also don't understand the rationale of people who think that it has a chance of passing in the senate.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I am not in favor of impeaching OPapaDoc, but I can see the rationale.  Even a loss creates a thorough investigation and public record that historians can judge on its merits, through the lens of time and history.  A generation down the road, as all the facts about this administration become known, people may well be asking why on earth the opposition party did nothing.

Still, impeachment carries far more negative political consequences than positive at this juncture.  Even if it is justified, it is foolish to pursue it, especially since there exists the possibility for a GOP sweep in 2016.

Nixon and Clinton were impeached based on direct, irrefutable proof of wrong doing.

Most of everything that everyone says we should impeach Obama for falls either what George Mason (in his first construct of the reasons for impeachment in the Constitution) labeled as "maladministration" and the rest are actions that are not directly attributable to him, or where there isn't direct proof of it, as we had in the case of Nixon's impeachment. Madison argue against the word "maladministration" because he believed that if used, impeachments would become routine, and the charge raised over differences in political ideology.

If impeachment does succeed on some reason that would require proving unconstitutional behavior, and the whole nation watches the debate, our national ADD will kick in and the reason for the impeachment will become "racism" and that will be as easily accepted by a significant portion of the nation as the "hands up don't shoot" meme was.

While lawyers discuss Constitutional minutiae and legalese, the media will control the narrative, and that narrative will paint Obama as a victim of racism, and brand everyone standing against him as racists.

There's nothing but bad ahead if we begin to travel down the impeachment road.

[truth_seeker]

Nixon might have been convicted in the Senate. If he barely avoided it, he would be badly damaged.

Clinton on the other hand, was unharmed by Impeachment. The GOP bit off more than they could chew. In so doing, they ruined their option to use Impeachment now, ironically in a case where it is more justified.

Such is the consequence of poor strategic decision making. 

[olde north church]

Nixon and Clinton were impeached based on direct, irrefutable proof of wrong doing.

Most of everything that everyone says we should impeach Obama for falls either what George Mason (in his first construct of the reasons for impeachment in the Constitution) labeled as "maladministration" and the rest are actions that are not directly attributable to him, or where there isn't direct proof of it, as we had in the case of Nixon's impeachment. Madison argue against the word "maladministration" because he believed that if used, impeachments would become routine, and the charge raised over differences in political ideology.

If impeachment does succeed on some reason that would require proving unconstitutional behavior, and the whole nation watches the debate, our national ADD will kick in and the reason for the impeachment will become "racism" and that will be as easily accepted by a significant portion of the nation as the "hands up don't shoot" meme was.

While lawyers discuss Constitutional minutiae and legalese, the media will control the narrative, and that narrative will paint Obama as a victim of racism, and brand everyone standing against him as racists.

There's nothing but bad ahead if we begin to travel down the impeachment road.

There is one significant between Clinton and now.  The Internet in America.  In 1997/8 had nowhere near the reach of today AND fewer people aren't as dependent as the MSM.

[Luis Gonzalez]

There is one significant between Clinton and now.  The Internet in America.  In 1997/8 had nowhere near the reach of today AND fewer people aren't as dependent as the MSM.

Yet, Obama was re-elected.

[jmyrlefuller]

Yet, Obama was re-elected.

If anything, the Internet has been utilized as a tool to deceive the very masses we thought it would liberate.

[Luis Gonzalez]

If anything, the Internet has been utilized as a tool to deceive the very masses we thought it would liberate.

Exactly.

[olde north church]

Yet, Obama was re-elected.

I mean as a tool in impeachment proceedings.  Clinton had, still has, the MSM in his corner.  There would at least be some support for the House and Senate.

[truth_seeker]

If anything, the Internet has been utilized as a tool to deceive the very masses we thought it would liberate.

"... the very masses we thought it would liberate..." are just as gullible, as ever.

Liberated birthers would be an example, of people that may well have been an opposition driven adventure, for example.

I wonder if they have jobs at the DNC, to take "real conservatives@" on crazy diversions?

To gain a following, just use the words "liberty," "Constitution" and "usurped" often.

They will stand up and charge the barricades, every time.

[Luis Gonzalez]

They will stand up and charge the barricades, every time.

Or the windmills.

[Fishrrman]

Luis wrote above:
[[ Nixon and Clinton were impeached based on direct, irrefutable proof of wrong doing. ]]

Huh?

Nixon was never impeached.

Where did you get this from, Luis?

[evadR]

Luis wrote above:
[[ Nixon and Clinton were impeached based on direct, irrefutable proof of wrong doing. ]]

Huh?

Nixon was never impeached.

Where did you get this from, Luis?

We all knew what he meant.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

"... the very masses we thought it would liberate..." are just as gullible, as ever.

Liberated birthers would be an example, of people that may well have been an opposition driven adventure, for example.

I wonder if they have jobs at the DNC, to take "real conservatives@" on crazy diversions?

To gain a following, just use the words "liberty," "Constitution" and "usurped" often.

They will stand up and charge the barricades, every time.

Good post.

[ABX]

So two-term governor Walker isn't ready but two-term governor Bush is?