The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: mystery-ak on February 28, 2015, 12:33:32 am
-
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/02/27/republican-powerbrokers-think-scott-walker-just-isnt-ready-do-they-have-a-point/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2015/02/27/republican-powerbrokers-think-scott-walker-just-isnt-ready-do-they-have-a-point/)
Republican power brokers think Scott Walker just isn’t ready. Do they have a point?
posted at 9:21 am on February 27, 2015 by Noah Rothman
The first instinct of many upon reading this headline will be to dismiss it. Presumably, “Republican powerbrokers” can be understood to mean Jeb Bush’s stable of handwringers for whom nothing is more frightening than an outspoken conservative who governs like one. But if we step back and suspend disbelief, it is not hard to see where Walker’s critics have a point.
First off, who are Walker’s critics? Well, outside of the political press and the nation’s editorial boards, which have determined that the Wisconsin governor is a “panderer of the first order” because the media is not the target of his pandering, Walker’s detractors are largely anonymous.
“There’s an emerging sense in the early states that Scott Walker is not ready for primetime,” Politico reported on Friday.
One open-ended question this week asked early-state insiders to pick which candidate of either party has made the biggest mistake this year. Scott Walker was the most common response.
Though a plurality of insiders still believe that the Wisconsin governor would win the Iowa caucuses if they were this week, several uncommitted Republicans marveled at what they described as rookie mistakes.
There’s a pervasive feeling that Walker erred by refusing to distance himself from former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, after Giuliani said at an event Walker was also attending that President Barack Obama does not love America. He also wouldn’t say whether he believes Obama is a Christian.
Clear-eyed conservatives should perhaps take a critical look at Walker’s level of preparedness. Take, for example, the twin controversies involving Walker that dominated the news cycle last week.
Those in the media who continue to scold Walker for his refusal to vigorously denounce Rudy Giuliani after the former mayor had the temerity to call into question Barack Obama’s patriotism (formerly a time-honored practice when George W. Bush occupied the Oval Office) are not exposing a weakness in Walker so much as they are revealing their own biases. Walker called Giuliani’s comments “aggressive, and that should have satisfied reporters.
But Walker’s response to a silly question about Obama’s devotion to Christianity is a different story. Go back and re-read it. The Wisconsin governor’s response was rambling and improvised. While he eventually settled on a fine retort in which he called into question the political media’s sensibilities, he did open himself up to criticism by pontificating at length on the imperfect nature of truly knowing another human being. He was winging it until he found his footing. Walker said five sentences when one declarative statement would have served his purposes.
Without the conservative blogosphere to call out the media for its silly attachment to cornering Republicans with “gotcha” questions, would that controversy have taken a greater toll on the Wisconsin governor’s presidential stature? And just how many times are conservative bloggers expected to rush to the governor’s defense in the coming months? Surely, their time would be better spent on offense rather than defending their hapless 2016 nominee.
Walker is not entirely the victim of an overzealous reporting culture that is seeking to throttle the governor’s infant presidential campaign in its crib. A fair appraisal of the governor would concede that he has a tendencey to invite controversy. Scott Walker stumbled into what National Review’s Jim Geraghty called a “genuine unforced error” at CPAC on Thursday when he insisted that his national security bona fides were established when he successfully faced down the Badger State’s progressive protesters.
“If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the globe,” Walker said of ISIS.
“That is a terrible response,” Geraghty wrote.
First, taking on a bunch of protesters is not comparably difficult to taking on a Caliphate with sympathizers and terrorists around the globe, and saying so suggests Walker doesn’t quite understand the complexity of the challenge from ISIS and its allied groups.
Secondly, it is insulting to the protesters, a group I take no pleasure in defending. The protesters in Wisconsin, so furiously angry over Walker’s reforms and disruptive to the procedures of passing laws, earned plenty of legitimate criticism. But they’re not ISIS. They’re not beheading innocent people. They’re Americans, and as much as we may find their ideas, worldview, and perspective spectacularly wrongheaded, they don’t deserve to be compared to murderous terrorists.
That’s fair. If a Democratic officeholder had compared the tea party protesters to ISIS terrorists, Republicans would be consumed with righteous indignation. It’s only honest to acknowledge that liberals have a justifiable claim to feel slighted.
More importantly, as Geraghty said, this does not convey confidence that Walker either is prepared to serve as commander-in-chief or understands the nature of the threat posed by ISIS. Some conservatives, like MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough and Daily Caller columnist Matt Lewis, have cited Ronald Reagan’s mass firing of the nation’s striking air traffic controllers as an example of how a president’s approach to domestic affairs can reshape the geopolitical landscape. The Soviets were taken aback by Reagan’s fearlessness in putting down by air traffic controller’s strike in 1981, but the Islamic State is not the Soviet Union. The Kremlin wanted nothing more than to avoid direct conflict with Washington and recalibrated their approach to foreign affairs accordingly in response to Reagan’s forcefulness. By contrast, ISIS is most desirous of drawing America into a fight inside the nascent caliphate. They want confrontation, preferably the direct kind, and they would likely welcome a more pugnacious president.
With all this having been said, Scott Walker remains an impressive candidate. He has proven he can talk over the heads of the media, he is thoroughly vetted, and he unites two increasingly fractious wings of the Republican Party. Commanders-in-chief are made, not born, and Walker has plenty of time to reframe his message on foreign policy.
Those who are casting a sideways glance at Walker today are, however, legitimately concerned about his readiness, and it behooves the conservative movement to seriously consider whether those apprehensions are well-founded.
-
Good grief. What a crock of crap. Walker is ready, willing and quite able to take on the DEMS and GOPe. I would love nothing more than someone like Walker to get the nod without all the Clinton and Bush money behind him.
However, right now there is a whole lot of focus on 2016 and a whole lot of time left for Barry to continue his path of destruction and/or to indefinitely suspend the elections.
-
Good grief. What a crock of crap. Walker is ready, willing and quite able to take on the DEMS and GOPe. I would love nothing more than someone like Walker to get the nod without all the Clinton and Bush money behind him.
However, right now there is a whole lot of focus on 2016 and a whole lot of time left for Barry to continue his path of destruction and/or to indefinitely suspend the elections.
Yep! There he was, Governor Walker, hat in hand before Sheldon Adleson promising to shake up the power structure. I don't want to dissuade you that Governor Walker is fully awesome. He is, but I see no evidence he wants to take on the GOPe.
Obama has no Constitutional authority to change the date of federal elections. There is no way the American people would stand for Obama suspending the elections. You and I would be marching in the streets.
-
Yep! There he was, Governor Walker, hat in hand before Sheldon Adleson promising to shake up the power structure. I don't want to dissuade you that Governor Walker is fully awesome. He is, but I see no evidence he wants to take on the GOPe.
Obama has no Constitutional authority to change the date of federal elections. There is no way the American people would stand for Obama suspending the elections. You and I would be marching in the streets.
Yep. That's what I've been saying. I feel pretty confident that at this point most people are pretty tired of Obama and there aren't enough Obama zombies left to overcome the outcry for Obama's immediate eviction at the end of this term.
People have got to get a grip here.
-
After Barack Hussein Obama, that argument just doesn't fly anymore...for ANYONE!!
-
After Barack Hussein Obama, that argument just doesn't fly anymore...for ANYONE!!
Yeah it does fly with almost everyone.
One thing is certain; Obama does not have the power to cancel the election. Nor, apparently, does he have the power to delay the election in any state, given the fact that jurisdiction over elections resides with state officials. It is doubtful that a Republican House would intervene to postpone the election nationally.
Read more: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/10/30/clarification-on-the-presidents-ability-to-suspend-the-election/#ixzz3T1M6y9Ql
-
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.
-
All this means is the insiders feel he isn't going to get on his knees and grovel before them and that scares them.
-
Yep! There he was, Governor Walker, hat in hand before Sheldon Adleson promising to shake up the power structure. I don't want to dissuade you that Governor Walker is fully awesome. He is, but I see no evidence he wants to take on the GOPe.
As de facto head of the party, he'll set the tone and the pace, which means—hopefully—he won't have to directly take the establishment head-on. The problem with the establishment that I've always seen is a lack of leadership and an unwillingness to take stands. If Walker is in charge, they will follow.
-
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.
Bush...Clinton...Bush...Obama....Bush?
America exists today because people ran from oligarchies.
Jeb Bush has a better chance of shaking hands with Jesus Christ than being POTUS.
And, because of the state of the nation today, we should NOT elect another Democrat right after 8 years of Barack Obama.
-
Bush...Clinton...Bush...Obama....Bush?
America exists today because people ran from oligarchies.
Jeb Bush has a better chance of shaking hands with Jesus Christ than being POTUS.
And, because of the state of the nation today, we should NOT elect another Democrat right after 8 years of Barack Obama.
Exactly. The last person that Americans want as president is another Clinton or Bush. I still think you will see Warren get the Dem nod and the potential GOP candidates will soon start to make their announcements taking the focus and interest off Bush.
-
Obama doesn't have the power (legal authority) to do half the things he does. He just does them and Triple Dog Dares anyone to do anything about it.
I assume everyone has been keeping up on current events.
-
F*$% the republican power brokers!
-
F*$% the republican power brokers!
I watched a news segment yesterday featuring multiple speakers at the CPAC convention in National Harbor, Maryland.
To be honest, Scott Walker stood out. For the wrong reasons.
For a moment, he appeared as if he was doing an imitation of Howard Dean...he of YEEHAH! fame. It was a bit unsettling.
-
I watched a news segment yesterday featuring multiple speakers at the CPAC convention in National Harbor, Maryland.
To be honest, Scott Walker stood out. For the wrong reasons.
For a moment, he appeared as if he was doing an imitation of Howard Dean...he of YEEHAH! fame. It was a bit unsettling.
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!
-
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!
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for Scott Walker at this time.
Just wish that he'd calm down a bit....maintain a bit of "gravitas". LOL!
-
Good grief. What a crock of crap. Walker is ready, willing and quite able to take on the DEMS and GOPe. I would love nothing more than someone like Walker to get the nod without all the Clinton and Bush money behind him.
However, right now there is a whole lot of focus on 2016 and a whole lot of time left for Barry to continue his path of destruction and/or to indefinitely suspend the elections.
The LIBS,DEMS and RINOS will always tell you whom they fear the most. I guess JEB is the answer according to the PUB power brokers. Well he might get all their money BUT if CPAC is any indication he will not get the CONSERVATIVE votes. If he is the candidate 7 M stayed home because of MITTENS and JEB will beat that record with more staying HOME. Not advocating not voting BUT these are the facts.
-
The LIBS,DEMS and RINOS will always tell you whom they fear the most. I guess JEB is the answer according to the PUB power brokers. Well he might get all their money BUT if CPAC is any indication he will not get the CONSERVATIVE votes. If he is the candidate 7 M stayed home because of MITTENS and JEB will beat that record with more staying HOME. Not advocating not voting BUT these are the facts.
When faced with either four more years of Hillary Clinton or another Alinsky deciple...and a God-fearing, America-loving, Constitution lover who is able to fog a mirror....staying home is NOT demonstrating your independence or political savvy.
Rather it demonstrates acute selfishness and shortsightedness.
-
The gotcha stuff with the journalists is nothing but contrived flap that will probably boost himself among conservatives and indies than anything. The real screwup was the union/ISIS comment. That was not good.
The biggest thing with Walker right now is that he is the poll leader, and as such he no longer can be out there winging it. He needs to get focused, get his team together, and start upping his game, or the media will take him down.
-
The gotcha stuff with the journalists is nothing but contrived flap that will probably boost himself among conservatives and indies than anything. The real screwup was the union/ISIS comment. That was not good.
The biggest thing with Walker right now is that he is the poll leader, and as such he no longer can be out there winging it. He needs to get focused, get his team together, and start upping his game, or the media will take him down.
And calm down. Learn "The Pope" wave. :laugh:
-
When faced with either four more years of Hillary Clinton or another Alinsky deciple...and a God-fearing, America-loving, Constitution lover who is able to fog a mirror....staying home is NOT demonstrating your independence or political savvy.
Rather it demonstrates acute selfishness and shortsightedness.
Agree staying HOME and not voting is not the answer BUT no one can control what disgusted Conservatives will do ?? Just looking at candidate MITTENS and what happened and JEB is way more LIBERAL than Mittens and the stay home results will continue. Their is a silver lining in their but that is another post.
-
Obama doesn't have the power (legal authority) to do half the things he does. He just does them and Triple Dog Dares anyone to do anything about it.
I assume everyone has been keeping up on current events.
Obama has the legal authority to enforce or not enforce the boarders. That is why the GOP has no recourse.
-
The LIBS,DEMS and RINOS will always tell you whom they fear the most. I guess JEB is the answer according to the PUB power brokers. Well he might get all their money BUT if CPAC is any indication he will not get the CONSERVATIVE votes. If he is the candidate 7 M stayed home because of MITTENS and JEB will beat that record with more staying HOME. Not advocating not voting BUT these are the facts.
When faced with the combined might of the Axis Powers, the US figured out that it was better to strike a temporary bargain with Communists and defeat Germany, than risk losing the war, all going down together.
Those 7 million that stayed home did a stupid thing. They allowed the more immediate enemy to win because their personal needs weren't sufficiently met by those with whom they had a measure of common ground with.
For decades now, going all the way back to Bush I, all I've ever heard conservatives brag about is how they are able, by their actions, to lose Presidential elections.
What I've never, ever seen them do, is win the Presidency all on their own.
Those are the actual FACTS.
-
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. ]]
Mass, you win the "Fishrrman's credo award" this month, for recognizing that...
"Reality is what it is. It is not what we believe it to be."
Your comment illustrates that the GOPe may be nearly as delusional as are the democrats.
At the risk of violating my own credo, I sense that Scott Walker may become the strongest Republican candidate to go before Americans since Reagan.
He has something within that strikes the common chord with many traditionally-minded Americans. And he seems to harbor the kind of political courage not seen in most politicians -- the kind that can lead to greatness.
We shall see.
-
Obama has the legal authority to enforce or not enforce the boarders. That is why the GOP has no recourse.
Au contraire; IMPEACHMENT it's the RIGHT thing to do.
-
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.
-
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!
-
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
-
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?
-
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.
-
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!
-
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
-
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.
-
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'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.
-
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'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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
If anything, the Internet has been utilized as a tool to deceive the very masses we thought it would liberate.
Exactly.
-
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.
-
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.
-
They will stand up and charge the barricades, every time.
Or the windmills.
-
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?
-
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.
-
"... 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.
-
So two-term governor Walker isn't ready but two-term governor Bush is?
-
So two-term governor Walker isn't ready but two-term governor Bush is?
Walker is just beginning his second term. Bush was Governor of a larger state and is the only Republican to serve 2 full 4-year terms in FL. Bush also has 2 Presidents he can turn to for advice on how to win and lead.
-
Walker is just beginning his second term. Bush was Governor of a larger state and is the only Republican to serve 2 full 4-year terms in FL. Bush also has 2 Presidents he can turn to for advice on how to win and lead.
America doesn't want or need another Bush. I don't think he'd be able to win his home state. Jeb's accumulated a lot of baggage and he has two very large strikes against him coming right out of the gate; Common Core and Illegal Immigration. Common Core's unpopularity continues to grow and illegal immigration has imposed a tremendous economic burden upon us here. Losing Florida would not only be an embarrassment to the GOP, but would pretty much ensure us of losing the oval office in 2016.
There have been very few Republican governors in the State of Florida period. Just because he was re-elected doesn't mean squat ... so was Obama.
Jeb Scandals/controversies:
http://reno4governor.tripod.com/index-85.html
http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2013/07/jeb_bushs_nigerian_bribery_sca.php
http://www.educationviews.org/jeb-bushs-education-scandals/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2002/02/22/jeb-bush-defends-relationship-with-former-enron-president/
http://www.politicalfixflorida.com/2015/02/28/jeb-bush-nigeria-and-the-fbi-how-a-business-deal-soured/
-
America doesn't want or need another Bush. I don't think he's going to be able to win his home state. Jeb's accumulated a lot of baggage and his "common core" is extremely unpopular here in Florida.
I'd love to see Walker, Paul or Perry win, but If I had to put money on it, Jeb will be the nominee.
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html
-
Walker is just beginning his second term. Bush was Governor of a larger state and is the only Republican to serve 2 full 4-year terms in FL. Bush also has 2 Presidents he can turn to for advice on how to win and lead.
' Presidents he can turn to for advice" Just what we need more "Compassionate Conservative RINO BS" That will work. 1st Bush gave us slick Willie and the 2nd gave us Barry???? And you want more !!!!! :nono:
-
' Presidents he can turn to for advice" Just what we need more "Compassionate Conservative RINO BS" That will work. 1st Bush gave us slick Willie and the 2nd gave us Barry???? And you want more !!!!! :nono:
:chairbang: :amen:
-
' Presidents he can turn to for advice" Just what we need more "Compassionate Conservative RINO BS" That will work. 1st Bush gave us slick Willie and the 2nd gave us Barry???? And you want more !!!!! :nono:
Nonsense.
1) There were 12 years of Republican presidents after Jimmy Carter. Republican fatigue thanks to a monopoly MSM that side with the DEMS....is what gave us Clinton.
2) so too, the MSM was the vehicle that gave us Obama. That, and ballot hanky panky.
-
Nonsense.
... Republican fatigue thanks to a monopoly MSM that side with the DEMS....is what gave us Clinton.
Ain't you forgetting someone?
(http://cafeconlecherepublicans.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Ross-Perot.jpg)
-
Ain't you forgetting someone?
(http://cafeconlecherepublicans.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Ross-Perot.jpg)
Damn! You're right.
Bubba garnered only about 43% of the popular vote. He did cruise in his 2nd term election, though. :bolt:
-
' Presidents he can turn to for advice" Just what we need more "Compassionate Conservative RINO BS" That will work. 1st Bush gave us slick Willie and the 2nd gave us Barry???? And you want more !!!!! :nono:
That "Compassionate Conservative RINO" won the CPAC straw poll in 2000.
Romney won in in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2012.
Romney is the all-time CPAC champion.
-
That "Compassionate Conservative RINO" won the CPAC straw poll in 2000.
Romney won in in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2012.
Romney is the all-time CPAC champion.
I thought Rand Paul or his father won the last 3 years @ CPAC. The Paul bots usually flood the place and Jeb tried to FIX it this year and failed. The Paul bots still out voted everyone. Something to talk about ? Still 2 years out but they will start lining up by Summer at least on the PUB side. The libs are going with Hillary and Warren is the chatter ???? Now that pair will beat a full house any day and Barry will be the advisor???
-
I thought Rand Paul or his father won the last 3 years @ CPAC. The Paul bots usually flood the place and Jeb tried to FIX it this year and failed. The Paul bots still out voted everyone. Something to talk about ? Still 2 years out but they will start lining up by Summer at least on the PUB side. The libs are going with Hillary and Warren is the chatter ???? Now that pair will beat a full house any day and Barry will be the advisor???
Ron won 2, Rand won 3, Mitt won 4.
-
That "Compassionate Conservative RINO" won the CPAC straw poll in 2000.
Romney won in in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2012.
Romney is the all-time CPAC champion.
What was his competition?
*crickets*
Exactly.
-
What was his competition?
*crickets*
Exactly.
2012 Straw Poll results
1 Mitt Romney 35%
2 Ron Paul 11%
3 Tim Pawlenty 8%
4 Sarah Palin 7%
5 Michele Bachmann 5%
6 Jim DeMint 5%
7 Herman Cain 4%
8 Chris Christie 3%
9 Rick Santorum 3%
10 Mitch Daniels 3%
11 Newt Gingrich 3%
12 Mike Huckabee 3%
-
Mitt won more votes than the next 5 conservative candidates.
Mitt tripled Ron Paul.
-
DCPatroit wrote above:
[[ Bubba garnered only about 43% of the popular vote. He did cruise in his 2nd term election, though. ]]
I might be mistaken, but didn't Clinton win only 49.5% of the popular vote in 1996?