The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: mystery-ak on July 29, 2014, 03:15:20 pm
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/29/boehner-rules-out-impeachment/print/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/29/boehner-rules-out-impeachment/print/)
By Stephen Dinan
-
The Washington Times
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
Talk of impeachment was cooked up by a White House desperate for something to rally Democrats ahead of November's elections, House Speaker John A. Boehner said Tuesday, flatly ruling out any action on the controversial suggestion.
"We have no plans to impeach the president. We have no future plans," Mr. Beohner said. "Listen, it's all a scam started by Democrats at the White House."
Democrats have acknowledged impeachment talk has been good for their fundraising, but also say there's some fire behind all the smoke. On Tuesday, congressional Democrats circulated a list of GOP candidates and sitting lawmakers who have said they want to see President Obama be impeached.
Some conservative commenters have said impeachment is the right step, given the way Mr. Obama has chosen to enforce or not enforce laws written by Congress.
But Republican leaders have tried to squelch the talk, saying they are focused on pursuing their lawsuit against Mr. Obama for overreaching his powers, and want to pass legislation on boosting job creation.
-
For once I agree with him.
-
Lawsuit? So that's what separation of powers mean? That when Congressional leadership is too timid to use their constitutional powers to fight back a lawless president, they take him to court? My, what towering GOPe statesmanship on display. I'm sure Obama's quaking in his golf shoes.
-
You want them to impeach? That's dumb, you know. It would assure the Dems keep the Senate.
And don't give me any of this Sarah-Palinized "principle" garbage. Impeachment is not judicial; it's political. And Obama cannot be convicted no matter what Palin in her delusion thinks, and it would generate a political disaster for the Republicans.
Reminds me of the silly government shutdown in October.
-
Lawsuit? Impeachment?? Heck, no. Leadership should be engaged in using article I powers, the power of the purse, to stop Obamas lawlessness.
-
You want them to impeach? That's dumb, you know. It would assure the Dems keep the Senate.
And don't give me any of this Sarah-Palinized "principle" garbage. Impeachment is not judicial; it's political. And Obama cannot be convicted no matter what Palin in her delusion thinks, and it would generate a political disaster for the Republicans.
Reminds me of the silly government shutdown in October.
Since I share Palin's delusion, let me say this. Realpolitik is going to DESTROY this country. If you believe 'nothing to see here', why is 'Boo Hoo' suing? What's the basis for the argument? If Obama is exceeding his powers [I assume the basis for the action], the remedy is impeachment. If Boehner and the GOPe won't exercise that option, because "We don't want to energize the Dim base", and we can see gains, yada, yada, yada; they're not fulfilling THEIR Constitutional duties. And those duties are, I would remind them upholding the Constitution - not the latest Gallup Poll.
-
Lawsuit? Impeachment?? Heck, no. Leadership should be engaged in using article I powers, the power of the purse, to stop Obamas lawlessness.
You mean like a govt shutdown? It took Obamacare being an absolute debacle for the GOP to recover from that foolish stunt.
-
Yes. Shut. Government. Down. Power of the purse. That's a legitimate constitutional power. Congress suing the president? That is not a legitimate tactic for Congress to take. Impeaching the first black president? A PR nightmare, as most of us Rubes know.
-
Yes. Shut. Government. Down. Power of the purse. That's a legitimate constitutional power. Congress suing the president? That is not a legitimate tactic for Congress to take. Impeaching the first black president? A PR nightmare, as most of us Rubes know.
Why not? If the only option is shutdown, the GOP may as well disband. Although, being the Stupid Party, I can see us doing something idiotic like shutting down the govt and yet again snatching defeat from the jaws of electoral victory.
-
Since I share Palin's delusion, let me say this. Realpolitik is going to DESTROY this country. If you believe 'nothing to see here', why is 'Boo Hoo' suing? What's the basis for the argument? If Obama is exceeding his powers [I assume the basis for the action], the remedy is impeachment. If Boehner and the GOPe won't exercise that option, because "We don't want to energize the Dim base", and we can see gains, yada, yada, yada; they're not fulfilling THEIR Constitutional duties. And those duties are, I would remind them upholding the Constitution - not the latest Gallup Poll.
Does the Constitution say that impeachment is the only means to settle a dispute between Congress and the President? No.
Does exercising undue executive discretion in enforcement of the laws constitute a "high crime or misdemeanor"? Very, very doubtful.
Then suing the President is a perfectly acceptable means, short of impeachment, to resolve a dispute between the legislative and executive branches, and is the only avenue if no "high crime or misdemeanor" is involved.
Reality is reality, no matter how ugly and upsetting it might be.
-
PzLdr wrote above:
[[ If Obama is exceeding his powers [I assume the basis for the action], the remedy is impeachment. If Boehner and the GOPe won't exercise that option, because "We don't want to energize the Dim base", and we can see gains, yada, yada, yada; they're not fulfilling THEIR Constitutional duties. ]]
Gee, finally, someone who agrees with me in this forum.
John Boehner "suing" the president to get him to enforce the laws and obey the Constitution is tantamount to a police officer writing out a verbal warning to a murderer.
Again, the quote from Winston Churchill:
“Sometimes doing your best is not good enough. Sometimes you must do what is required.”
-
aligncare wrote above:
[[ Congress suing the president? That is not a legitimate tactic for Congress to take. Impeaching the first black president? A PR nightmare, as most of us Rubes know. ]]
Is all that matters now -- "PR"?
What's the use of voting for Republicans, if all they're gonna do is try to puff up their PR?
All Boehner has done with this nonsense is signal to Obama that he has the green light to do whatever he wishes via edict and executive order. No one is going to stop him because there is only one sanction provided by the Constitution by which to stop him, and the Republicans seem to be saying that they will not use it, will never use it.
BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A PR NIGHTMARE
(shouting intentional).
Has it really come to this?
What are the Pubbies gonna do next?
Run up a white flag, just so there can be no doubt?
I'm supposed to VOTE for these people, come November?
Why?
-
PzLdr wrote above:
[[ If Obama is exceeding his powers [I assume the basis for the action], the remedy is impeachment. If Boehner and the GOPe won't exercise that option, because "We don't want to energize the Dim base", and we can see gains, yada, yada, yada; they're not fulfilling THEIR Constitutional duties. ]]
Gee, finally, someone who agrees with me in this forum.
John Boehner "suing" the president to get him to enforce the laws and obey the Constitution is tantamount to a police officer writing out a verbal warning to a murderer.
Again, the quote from Winston Churchill:
“Sometimes doing your best is not good enough. Sometimes you must do what is required.”
I'm with you as well, recall: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,143429.msg583845.html#msg583845 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,143429.msg583845.html#msg583845)
In which I used this Churchill quote:
“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
-
aligncare wrote above:
[[ Congress suing the president? That is not a legitimate tactic for Congress to take. Impeaching the first black president? A PR nightmare, as most of us Rubes know. ]]
Is all that matters now -- "PR"?
What's the use of voting for Republicans, if all they're gonna do is try to puff up their PR?
All Boehner has done with this nonsense is signal to Obama that he has the green light to do whatever he wishes via edict and executive order. No one is going to stop him because there is only one sanction provided by the Constitution by which to stop him, and the Republicans seem to be saying that they will not use it, will never use it.
BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A PR NIGHTMARE
(shouting intentional).
Has it really come to this?
What are the Pubbies gonna do next?
Run up a white flag, just so there can be no doubt?
I'm supposed to VOTE for these people, come November?
Why?
You are totally correct, the Republicans have been cowed into basically telling him that he has carte blanche at this point, nothing will be done.
The conventional wisdom is that taking the Senate in November will allow them to somehow "stop him." IMO, it is whistling past the graveyard at this point. (As there is nothing that they will be able to do legislatively to halt any of it. And of course, even with the Senate, the "i" word will still be off the table, because... well, you know..... 2016......)
-
Well, this site is drifting toward being exactly like FR was a few years ago. :shrug:
-
Well, this site is drifting toward being exactly like FR was a few years ago. :shrug:
:facepalm2:
how so?
-
Since I share Palin's delusion, let me say this. Realpolitik is going to DESTROY this country. If you believe 'nothing to see here', why is 'Boo Hoo' suing? What's the basis for the argument? If Obama is exceeding his powers [I assume the basis for the action], the remedy is impeachment. If Boehner and the GOPe won't exercise that option, because "We don't want to energize the Dim base", and we can see gains, yada, yada, yada; they're not fulfilling THEIR Constitutional duties. And those duties are, I would remind them upholding the Constitution - not the latest Gallup Poll.
It is a political exercise. Impeachment. If one cannot WIN that exercise, it is best not take it up. Especially since impeachment would guarantee Democrats keep the Senate.
You'd rather lose every fight and stand on your silly "principle."
-
Well, this site is drifting toward being exactly like FR was a few years ago. :shrug:
I agree. How sad.
-
You are totally correct, the Republicans have been cowed into basically telling him that he has carte blanche at this point, nothing will be done.
The conventional wisdom is that taking the Senate in November will allow them to somehow "stop him." IMO, it is whistling past the graveyard at this point. (As there is nothing that they will be able to do legislatively to halt any of it. And of course, even with the Senate, the "i" word will still be off the table, because... well, you know..... 2016......)
No President will be impeached and convicted outside of a bipartisan effort. No Democrat will vote to impeach or convict Obama.
Thus, it is a waste of time to even try. The best thing we can do is VOTE DEMOCRATS OUT OF OFFICE!!!!
-
No President will be impeached and convicted outside of a bipartisan effort. No Democrat will vote to impeach or convict Obama.
Thus, it is a waste of time to even try. The best thing we can do is VOTE DEMOCRATS OUT OF OFFICE!!!!
Exactly.
-
It is a political exercise. Impeachment. If one cannot WIN that exercise, it is best not take it up. Especially since impeachment would guarantee Democrats keep the Senate.
You'd rather lose every fight and stand on your silly "principle."
Most governmental processes are 'political exercises'. So your calculus is if you can't win, don't try. Glad Leonidas didn't have you for an advisor. And, yeah, I'd rather lose for a 'silly' principle [the rule of law], than win with no principles at all.
-
Most governmental processes are 'political exercises'. So your calculus is if you can't win, don't try. Glad Leonidas didn't have you for an advisor. And, yeah, I'd rather lose for a 'silly' principle [the rule of law], than win with no principles at all.
A realist might say that if you don't have what you to believe to be a winning hand, you fold and wait for the next pot, and hopefully are dealt a more likely winning hand in order to use your capital. :pondering:
-
Well, this site is drifting toward being exactly like FR was a few years ago. :shrug:
I agree. How sad.
I'm not seeing that. Where are the Zots and Kittie Brigades. Where are the fools gloating that a voice was silenced? Where are the contributors who shrug their shoulders and OPUS out?
What I see is a lot of stupid people certain they are right about everything. and yes I'm talking about myself too. I can't believe you guys have not banned me already with my GOPe apologist spiel and my Rah Rah Rah RINO cheerleading. This place is nothing like FR.
If it was, a lot of both(speekinout and Carling) your usually brilliant and thoughtful analysis would read [Comment #15 Removed by Moderator]
-
Again, the quote from Winston Churchill:
“Sometimes doing your best is not good enough. Sometimes you must do what is required.”
How did that work out in Gallipoli?
-
A realist might say that if you don't have what you to believe to be a winning hand, you fold and wait for the next pot, and hopefully are dealt a more likely winning hand in order to use your capital. :pondering:
That is an excellent analogy. Another analogy for politics is war. In war rational people want to pick the battles they can win and stall or retreat from battles they can't win.
-
Most governmental processes are 'political exercises'. So your calculus is if you can't win, don't try. Glad Leonidas didn't have you for an advisor. And, yeah, I'd rather lose for a 'silly' principle [the rule of law], than win with no principles at all.
It's called choosing your battles. I'd suggest recalling some of the military "common sense" rules (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,144733.0.html) rangerrebew posted. In particular: #6. If the enemy is in range, so are you. and #15. If your attack is going too well, you have walked into an ambush.
The democrats desperately want Obama to be impeached, which is why they're trying to walk republicans into an ambush.
-
There are two very important subtexts to this.
First - Americans are sick to the point of exhaustion of divisiveness in politics. Sure, the average American doesn't pay close attention, but they do get a sense of the constant bickering and entrenched attitudes. Pressing impeachment is simply putting a banner and a neon sign over the Republicans to advertise themselves as the party of division. Impeachment will make a statement alright, and the public will respond accordingly.
Second - This addresses why so many want impeachment, when you elect a Republican, what do you get? I honestly don't know, my political barometer, my moderate friend, has no clue. Right now, the only thing Republicans seem to be is not Democrats, (in title, not in fact). Republicans don't have to be hardcore conservatives down the line. But they do need to say what they mean, and mean what they say. Be something, not just run as "not one of them".
-
There are two very important subtexts to this.
First - Americans are sick to the point of exhaustion of divisiveness in politics. Sure, the average American doesn't pay close attention, but they do get a sense of the constant bickering and entrenched attitudes. Pressing impeachment is simply putting a banner and a neon sign over the Republicans to advertise themselves as the party of division. Impeachment will make a statement alright, and the public will respond accordingly.
Second - This addresses why so many want impeachment, when you elect a Republican, what do you get? I honestly don't know, my political barometer, my moderate friend, has no clue. Right now, the only thing Republicans seem to be is not Democrats, (in title, not in fact). Republicans don't have to be hardcore conservatives down the line. But they do need to say what they mean, and mean what they say. Be something, not just run as "not one of them".
:thumbsup:
-
It seems for some conservatives, walking into a Gatling gun proves you are brave and worthy.
What made Nixon resign was when 6 of the 17 GOP members of the House Judiciary committee joined all 21 democrats, reporting to impeach. July 28, 1973. Vote total on committee therefore 27 to 11.
Just over 1/3 of Nixon's party committee reps. turned on him, plus unanimous from opposition party.
You know there is not a dem today that would vote to impeach Obama. It would be a purely partisan adventure, and might end poorly.
What is different today? The public case has not been made, argued, and proved.
-
It seems for some conservatives, walking into a Gatling gun proves you are brave and worthy.
What made Nixon resign was when 6 of the 17 GOP members of the House Judiciary committee joined all 21 democrats, reporting to impeach. July 28, 1973. Vote total on committee therefore 27 to 11.
Just over 1/3 of Nixon's party committee reps. turned on him, plus unanimous from opposition party.
You know there is not a dem today that would vote to impeach Obama. It would be a purely partisan adventure, and might end poorly.
What is different today? The public case has not been made, argued, and proved.
Ah, but the public case is made every day. It's just that the public case is in favor of 0bama. The media makes its case over and over, and has convinced many - if not most - Americans that 0bama is the victim here, and the GOP only wants to prevent him from carrying out his agenda and has no good ideas of their own. And that is the entire case; issues like the mess in the mideast, border security, a weak economy, 0bamacare, etc. are not relevant.
The dim case is made by all the major networks, almost all newspapers, Hollywood celebrities (in speeches and movies). The GOP has Fox and conservative radio hosts in rebuttal.
-
I agree that impeachment is a bad idea for now. I can think of situations in which impeachment would be a good political move, even if unsuccessful. That time is not at hand. It may be before this president is done.
I think it is a mistake for Boehner to take it off the table without qualification, especially since this POTUS has committed acts that are clearly impeachable. Boehner should have been more forceful in denouncing OPapaDoc's power overreaches and less emphatic about ruling impeachment out.
By stating unequivocally that impeachment is off the table he is basically saying that no matter what OPapaDoc does, the congress is not going to adhere to its constitutional responsibilities to maintain a balance of power between the branches of government. That is an invitation for OPapaDoc to do whatever he wants.
-
By stating that impeachment is off the table, Boehner weakened the dims best campaign tactic for Nov. The dims are counting on the threat of impeachment to get their voters out. If that threat is gone, the dims have nothing to run on.
And if the GOP takes the Senate, they have more ways to control what happens.
-
Ah, but the public case is made every day. It's just that the public case is in favor of 0bama. The media makes its case over and over, and has convinced many - if not most - Americans that 0bama is the victim here, and the GOP only wants to prevent him from carrying out his agenda and has no good ideas of their own. And that is the entire case; issues like the mess in the mideast, border security, a weak economy, 0bamacare, etc. are not relevant.
The dim case is made by all the major networks, almost all newspapers, Hollywood celebrities (in speeches and movies). The GOP has Fox and conservative radio hosts in rebuttal.
Your claim is that conservatives are "victims" of the evil biased media. It is the ever present mantra of conservatism. Since at least Nixon's time (yet the GOP elected Nixon, Reagan,
bush I and Bush II during this time)
Yet every day I get both sides, on the same media the right says won't give them a break.
No, conservatism has made weak cases for several years. Weak candidates, making weak cases.
The latest thing is even weaker candidates, as long as they are NOT "establishment" which is yet another kind of victimology.
-
Your claim is that conservatives are "victims" of the evil biased media. It is the ever present mantra of conservatism. Since at least Nixon's time (yet the GOP elected Nixon, Reagan,
bush I and Bush II during this time)
Yet every day I get both sides, on the same media the right says won't give them a break.
No, conservatism has made weak cases for several years. Weak candidates, making weak cases.
The latest thing is even weaker candidates, as long as they are NOT "establishment" which is yet another kind of victimology.
I can see where you would get that impression from what I said. But I certainly do not want to cast the GOP as victims. I totally dislike the vast majority of "victim" status claims.
The media *does* have an undue influence on politics, but that's because the GOP hasn't figured out how to counteract their influence. It will be a long time before the media will ever be even-handed, so there has to be another way. If I had the magic answer, I'd be a very high paid media consultant.
I do agree that conservatives have put forth too many weak candidates. That makes it even harder for the relatively unknown ones, even if they aren't so weak. But the major issue, IMO, is that the GOP hasn't found a good way to communicate their message. They don't have the media. They've had good response to some celebrity led rallies and concerts, but they don't do those nearly as often as the libs do. They don't have as strong a grass roots org. as the libs do.
You can't make your enemy state your case effectively; you have to find a better way to communicate.
-
I can see where you would get that impression from what I said. But I certainly do not want to cast the GOP as victims. I totally dislike the vast majority of "victim" status claims.
The media *does* have an undue influence on politics, but that's because the GOP hasn't figured out how to counteract their influence. It will be a long time before the media will ever be even-handed, so there has to be another way. If I had the magic answer, I'd be a very high paid media consultant.
I do agree that conservatives have put forth too many weak candidates. That makes it even harder for the relatively unknown ones, even if they aren't so weak. But the major issue, IMO, is that the GOP hasn't found a good way to communicate their message. They don't have the media. They've had good response to some celebrity led rallies and concerts, but they don't do those nearly as often as the libs do. They don't have as strong a grass roots org. as the libs do.
You can't make your enemy state your case effectively; you have to find a better way to communicate.
I pretty much agree. And you don't garner fair coverage from the media, if you call them names everyday, either.
That from Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People" which ought to be required reading during charm school for those seriously interested in understanding politics.
I saw Todd Akin on TV a couple of weeks ago. Why is he on? The media gave him a chance to redeem himself, but he blew it huge. Weak candidates. Weak message.
No amount of fair coverage by the media will offset the damage he did, and will continue to do if not taken off the stage.
-
I pretty much agree. And you don't garner fair coverage from the media, if you call them names everyday, either.
That from Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People" which ought to be required reading during charm school for those seriously interested in understanding politics.
I saw Todd Akin on TV a couple of weeks ago. Why is he on? The media gave him a chance to redeem himself, but he blew it huge. Weak candidates. Weak message.
No amount of fair coverage by the media will offset the damage he did, and will continue to do if not taken off the stage.
Definitely agree about Carnegie!!
And Akin is a very good example of the problem. He was a weak candidate that the GOP never should have put in a prominent role. But the media will be very happy to use him at every opportunity. He fits their narrative.
There must be a way for the GOP to counteract that kind of media coverage. Maybe they could find a way to do another Gingrich "Contract" that had photos of the successful politicians unified. The weak ones always are invited to appear alone so the audience focuses on their bad traits - most of which are not shared by other GOPers.
-
Since I share Palin's delusion, let me say this. Realpolitik is going to DESTROY this country. If you believe 'nothing to see here', why is 'Boo Hoo' suing? What's the basis for the argument? If Obama is exceeding his powers [I assume the basis for the action], the remedy is impeachment. If Boehner and the GOPe won't exercise that option, because "We don't want to energize the Dim base", and we can see gains, yada, yada, yada; they're not fulfilling THEIR Constitutional duties. And those duties are, I would remind them upholding the Constitution - not the latest Gallup Poll.
BRAVO!!!
Well said!! I couldn't agree more!
:hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands:
-
I agree that impeachment is a bad idea for now. I can think of situations in which impeachment would be a good political move, even if unsuccessful. That time is not at hand. It may be before this president is done.
I think it is a mistake for Boehner to take it off the table without qualification, especially since this POTUS has committed acts that are clearly impeachable. Boehner should have been more forceful in denouncing OPapaDoc's power overreaches and less emphatic about ruling impeachment out.
By stating unequivocally that impeachment is off the table he is basically saying that no matter what OPapaDoc does, the congress is not going to adhere to its constitutional responsibilities to maintain a balance of power between the branches of government. That is an invitation for OPapaDoc to do whatever he wants.
Excellent post. Agree in toto.
-
By stating that impeachment is off the table, Boehner weakened the dims best campaign tactic for Nov. The dims are counting on the threat of impeachment to get their voters out. If that threat is gone, the dims have nothing to run on.
And if the GOP takes the Senate, they have more ways to control what happens.
He could have accomplished the political objective much more effectively without unequivocally taking impeachment off the table.
-
He could have accomplished the political objective much more effectively without unequivocally taking impeachment off the table.
I guess we have to agree to disagree. I don't see how the dims could have been prevented from using impeachment as a campaign issue unless he did. If you see a way, then do explain.
-
truth_seeker wrote above:
[[ What is different today? The public case has not been made, argued, and proved. ]]
The "public case" cannot be made unless the Republicans are willing to step forward and make it.
The "public case" cannot be argued [in a Senate trial] until the House Republicans (who have the votes) vote for articles of impeachment to be tried in the Senate.
The "public case" will not be proved until that trial is held, the public watches, and then communicates its wishes to the Congress.
This does not have to happen now and shouldn't happen now.
Perhaps Obama's most egregious offense is yet to come -- the "legalization edict".
Let the democrats howl about a "pending impeachment" that they wish will happen so that they can turn Americans against the Republicans. They are too clever by half.
They'd better be careful about what they're wishin' for !!