The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: flowers on July 09, 2014, 04:54:44 pm
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/07/09/boehner-disagrees-with-palin-on-impeaching-obama/
House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) disagrees with Republicans calling for the impeachment of President Obama.
Former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin on Tuesday joined a growing chorus of Republicans calling for the impeachment of Obama, writing in an 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.' "
"I disagree," Boehner said when asked by reporters Wednesday morning. When a reporter pointed out that some House Republicans also are calling for impeachment, Boehner said again: "I disagree."
-
Palin further marginalizes herself. She's becoming a female Alex Jones.
-
Palin further marginalizes herself. She's becoming a female Alex Jones.
:laugh:
-
Palin further marginalizes herself. She's becoming a female Alex Jones.
:patriot:
-
House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) disagrees with Republicans calling for the impeachment of President Obama.
Of course he does! He's only interested in political expediency! Right and wrong don't enter into the equation for him!
-
Boehner is a spineless wuss, and the Palin haters will get themselves off to this until the next GOP sponsored anti-Palin story comes out.
-
Sarah Palin dropped off the relevancy curve long ago. Mama Bear (isn't that absurd... really?) is clawing to find the words and delivery to get back on that curve.
Failing something entirely new, the Republicans will not bring impeachment proceedings against Obama. The debate alone would take two years and there would be far too much peril to Republican prospects in 2016. And Good Lord, it would be beyond disastrous if started now. Yes, it is a political calculation. It always is, isn't it? Boehner may be spineless (I can see that argument at times), but he is correct here. As for right or wrong... you can debate that among yourselves all you want if you like.
-
In a thread yesterday, I made the comment that the Republican party is becoming "a party about nothing" (a la the comment about the old Seinfeld tv show).
Mr. Boehner is truly "the leader" of such a party.
A "speaker" who amounts to.... well.... nothing.
Once again, it takes an outsider like Palin to say what Republicans supposedly "in" positions of power should be considering.
If ever there was a charge worthy of articles of impeachment, it is that Obama has either unwillingly or willingly refused to execute his obligations to protect the nation and the States the from foreign invasion that has been ongoing since his presidency began, and which is now turning into a deluge.
This goes beyond political partisanship in that it has become a direct threat to the health of the nation. I have yet to see a poll as to what Americans think about this, but I sense that most (white) Americans if asked directly will agree to such a notion.
And I will go further and proffer that a growing number of Americans (perhaps not a majority yet, but a significant minority) think that impeachment for such a dereliction of duty is the right and proper thing to do.
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img849/4963/1chp.gif)
-
Sarah Palin dropped off the relevancy curve long ago. Mama Bear (isn't that absurd... really?) is clawing to find the words and delivery to get back on that curve.
Failing something entirely new, the Republicans will not bring impeachment proceedings against Obama. The debate alone would take two years and there would be far too much peril to Republican prospects in 2016. And Good Lord, it would be beyond disastrous if started now. Yes, it is a political calculation. It always is, isn't it? Boehner may be spineless (I can see that argument at times), but he is correct here. As for right or wrong... you can debate that among yourselves all you want if you like.
So are you saying that an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States against all enemies both foreign and domestic is now subject to debate? If so we have lost already!
-
In a thread yesterday, I made the comment that the Republican party is becoming "a party about nothing" (a la the comment about the old Seinfeld tv show).
Mr. Boehner is truly "the leader" of such a party.
A "speaker" who amounts to.... well.... nothing.
Once again, it takes an outsider like Palin to say what Republicans supposedly "in" positions of power should be considering.
If ever there was a charge worthy of articles of impeachment, it is that Obama has either unwillingly or willingly refused to execute his obligations to protect the nations and the States the from foreign invasion that has been ongoing since his presidency began, and which is now turning into a deluge.
This goes beyond political partisanship in that it has become a direct threat to the health of the nation. I have yet to see a poll as to what Americans think about this, but I sense that most (white) Americans if asked directly will agree to such a notion.
And I will go further and proffer that a growing number of Americans (perhaps not a majority yet, but a significant minority) think that impeachment for such a dereliction of duty is the right and proper thing to do.
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img849/4963/1chp.gif)
God forbid that anyone in Washington would actually stand on principle and do what's right regardless of the political consequences!!!
-
So are you saying that an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States against all enemies both foreign and domestic is now subject to debate? If so we have lost already!
No bigun. My post is clear. I am saying it (impeachment proceedings) will not happen.
Edit: Added clarity in parentheses.
-
No bigun. My post is clear. I am saying it (impeachment proceedings) will not happen.
Edit: Added clarity in parentheses.
On that we agree.
As to whether or not they SHOULD happen is an entirely different matter!
-
The Constitutional remedy of impeachment presumed enough inherent virtue on the part of the people that they would support the removal of a President, even one they agreed with politically, should his actions prove to be in violation of his oath of office.
We do not live in such a country any more. Further, the conversion of our highest legislative body, the Senate, from a representative body not of state legislatures but of their majority populations (via the 17th Amendment) effectively nullified impeachment as a realistic means of removing a chief executive whose own inherent lack of virtue or even love of country allowed him to defend otherwise indefensible behavior.
Whatever else you might think of him, Richard Nixon resigned rather than face possible conviction because he valued the nation above his own personal ambition. Bill Clinton's transgressions were less serious than Nixon's, and he never faced a realistic threat of removal from office owing to his willingness to obfuscate and to the Senate's lack of will to convict him on charges that many did not consider to be actually criminal.
I am convinced that Barack Obama will never be convicted of any charges, no matter how grave - and his transgressions are more serious than either Nixon's or Clinton's - because in our time, group identity and "Progressive" intentionality trump any objective sense of morality, insofar as such a sense any longer exists in public life.
-
All the talk of impeachment, yet seldom do I read mention of the specific charges.
Both Nixon and Clinton faced specific charges. What are they for Obama?
-
All the talk of impeachment, yet seldom do I read mention of the specific charges.
Both Nixon and Clinton faced specific charges. What are they for Obama?
First and foremost, obstruction of justice, for ordering the destruction of evidence in an investigation.
Then abuse of power, for using the Department of the Treasury to intimidate political opponents.
That's for starters.
-
Regardless of the denials that it could happen, I sense that this story (impeachment) is just beginning, and that there may soon be even more revelations that will drive it forward regardless of what -both- parties wish.
Sometimes events develop beyond the means of "the powers that be" to control them.
We shall see...
-
Regardless of the denials that it could happen, I sense that this story (impeachment) is just beginning, and that there may soon be even more revelations that will drive it forward regardless of what -both- parties wish.
Sometimes events develop beyond the means of "the powers that be" to control them.
We shall see...
I hope so. I think Obama has aided and abetted our enemies and I think his administration has engaged in numerous cover-ups of scandals which, as you said Fishrrman, are only starting to come out and I do believe there is a lot more out there. I always pray that the truth will be exposed for everyone to see.
Having said that, I don't think the political landscape right now favors impeachment. Boehner just came out and said that he didn't agree with impeachment of Obama, so there.
-
Regardless of the denials that it could happen, I sense that this story (impeachment) is just beginning, and that there may soon be even more revelations that will drive it forward regardless of what -both- parties wish.
Sometimes events develop beyond the means of "the powers that be" to control them.
We shall see...
Dream on. But thanks for helping to re-elect the democrats and install President Clinton, Hillary, that is.
-
It's pretty clear to me that until or unless there is bi-partisan support, impeachment is a horrible move. The media would crucify Republicans who dare attack their "lord and savior".
Don't mistake disappointment in Obama for a loss of following. The media has too much invested in their affirmative action hire to stop loving him.
-
It's pretty clear to me that until or unless there is bi-partisan support, impeachment is a horrible move. The media would crucify Republicans who dare attack their "lord and savior".
Don't mistake disappointment in Obama for a loss of following. The media has too much invested in their affirmative action hire to stop loving him.
Exactly.