Where Republicans See Conspiracy, I See a Compelling Argument for Impeachment

by lizard

There’s an interesting conspiracy theory being put forth by Republicans regarding impeachment. Readers of this defiled political space know I can’t resist a good conspiracy, so here’s the gist (Media Matters):

Right-wing media and Republicans are blaming Democrats and President Obama for allegedly “ginning up” the issue of impeachment for political benefit, but that Pandora’s Box was opened by conservatives themselves, who have been demanding impeachment since Obama first took office.

In an interview with conspiracy website WND (which has its own “Impeachment Store”), Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) told conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi that President Obama “wants us to impeach him now” because “his senior advisors believe that is the only chance the Democratic Party has to avoid a major electoral defeat. Evidently Obama believes impeachment could motivate the Democratic Party base to come out and vote.”

Stockman’s proclamation that the president is “begging to be impeached” was quickly trumpeted as the top story on the Drudge Report and Fox Nation, and Stockman isn’t the only one trying to pin the increase in impeachment discussion on Democrats. While refusing to answer whether impeachment is off the table for House Republicans, incoming House Majority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) claimed “this might be the first White House in History that’s trying to start the narrative of impeaching their own president.”

So now that it’s a conspiracy theory to pin on Republicans, Democrats can focus on that, and not the reality that there actually are grounds for impeaching this president.

To start us off, let’s take a look at the sad lament of a former Clinton aide, Bill Curry, who recently proclaimed that the Democratic Party has lost its soul. I guess a guy who had a front-row seat for what Clinton started would know. Here are some of his thoughts on populism:

One reason we know voters will embrace populism is that they already have. It’s what they thought they were getting with Obama. In 2008 Obama said he’d bail out homeowners, not just banks. He vowed to fight for a public option, raise the minimum wage and clean up Washington. He called whistle-blowers heroes and said he’d bar lobbyists from his staff. He was critical of drones and wary of the use of force to advance American interests. He spoke eloquently of the threats posed to individual privacy by a runaway national security state.

He turned out to be something else altogether. To blame Republicans ignores a glaring truth: Obama’s record is worst where they had little or no role to play. It wasn’t Republicans who prosecuted all those whistle-blowers and hired all those lobbyists; who authorized drone strikes or kept the NSA chugging along; who reneged on the public option, the minimum wage and aid to homeowners. It wasn’t even Republicans who turned a blind eye to Wall Street corruption and excessive executive compensation. It was Obama.

A populist revolt among Democrats is unlikely absent their reappraisal of Obama, which itself seems unlikely. Not since Robert Kennedy have Democrats been so personally invested in a public figure. Liberals fell hardest so it’s especially hard for them to admit he’s just not that into them.

A microcosm of this stubborn liberal buy-in can be found in the Walsh campaign. Calls for Walsh to step down, IMHO, will prove futile and Democrats will be stuck with a Bush doctrine plagiarist until the bitter end. Daines will have enough of the slick veneer corporate loot buys in 30 second niblets to (sadly) convince the low percentage of registered voters who even bother to vote anymore that he somehow represents their interests.

Of course, I could be wrong. I’m sure our local media is salivating for a resignation and new Democrat appointment for Montana’s Senatorial hot seat. After all, there are national implications driving this political drama. Could it be a media storm someone like Denise Juneau could ride, or, at the very least, lose with a bit more dignity in November? What say you Montana Democrats? Do you have the stomach for trying to cram Walsh’s deceitful careerism down your base’s throats?

Getting back on track from that local tangent, a guest post at Zerohedge offers a compelling argument for impeaching Obama now—tomorrow’s tyrant. I’m going to skip over the partisan speculation that precedes this key consideration:

There is a deeper strategic consideration that should concern citizens and politicians. This issue should transcend parochial political interest and political advantage consideration. Not addressing impeachment threatens what is left of the Rule of Law and the Constitution. Not addressing impeachment ensures greater tyranny in the future.

The current president makes Richard Nixon look like a paragon of truth, integrity and honor in comparison. If Obama doesn’t qualify for impeachment, then nobody ever again will.

It is difficult to imagine worse violations of the Constitution, separation of powers and general dishonor of the office than this president has committed. Yet we assuredly will see worse by successors. Impeachment is necessary in order to preserve what little structure the Founders provided. A line in the sand must be drawn that says to successors where they dare not go. Without impeachment Obama’s acts serve as precedents. Future presidents will have immunity to repeat them and add their own variations and enhancements that further stretch the boundaries. The absence of action has the unintended effect of further defining presidential deviancy downward.

Democrats, by failing to hold the executive office accountable for its own enhancements on what Bush accomplished, will be complicit in whatever future mutation of rule by executive decree occurs.

I purposely didn’t say “Obama” in the previous sentence because it really is about the capacity of the office and not the whims of the person holding that office.

That said, there is no way impeachment proceedings against Barack Hussein Obama wouldn’t be, in some capacity, depicted as a political lynching.

Sad how a political race umbrella ensures tomorrow’s tyrant will have today’s established precedent to build on.


  1. evdebs

    You want Denise Juneau to run for Senate? She almost lost her seat to a nonentity two years ago, failing to do the most basic opp research on her flaky opponent, That would seem to be a sure way to get Ruth Bader Ginsberg replaced with some center-right poseur on the order of Kennedy, the only kind of justice Obama could possibly get confirmed.

    • lizard19

      could you pitch us some Daines attack ads that will have any impact with that whole military honor thing shot to hell?

    • JC

      Walsh already is a lost cause, so why not let someone else take a whack at it? Nothing more to lose. And after all, it was Schweitzer’s losing to Baucus that propelled him into the Governor’s seat. Good way to get vetted and get some name recog.

      • Turner

        Walsh was going to have a hard time winning before the plagiarism scandal. Now he’s a sure loser. His campaign will be a pathetic spectacle of a man hopelessly trying to defend the indefensible.

        Denise Juneau, if she were named as Walsh’s replacement, might not win either. It would be hard for any last-minute emergency candidate to win. But at least she would offer us a candidate we could vote for in good conscience.

        • I’ve been not voting for decades, and my conscience is clear. It just encourages them. The electoral system is a distraction, not a remedy.

  2. Nevermind the hypocrisy of members of Congress being OK with the NSA/CIA spying on U.S. citizens, but having issues with the CIA spying on them, but I think a pretty damning case can be made that Obama should be impeached.

    The CIA was caught spying(hacking into the computers) of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the bastard didn’t even bat an eye.

    The Executive Branch was spying on the Legislative Branch. The head of the Executive Branch is out of control. There is a massive breakdown in the Separation of Powers, and Obama is culpable.

  3. steve kelly

    Obama, like all 100 senators, is doing exactly as he is told. Executive power grab did not begin in 2008. Remember VP Dick Cheney? How about the 2000 election decided by SCOTUS? Precedent — judicial, constitutional, executive, etc. — is breached whenever “higher” power says so. Laws, what laws?

  4. Big Swede

    A discrattionary tactic.

    When your world colapses around you play the victim card.

    • discrattionary? That one is kinda incomprehensible, even for you Swede. Clarify please.

      • Big Swede

        discrattionary, meaning full of distractions.

        Spell check liked it. Must be some sort of urban slang.

      • Possibly based on the word “scat” as in scatology.

  5. Before anything else, I would love to see an Impeachment proceeding simply because it would motivate the electorate to pay attention to law instead of us-them bullshit that would lead to such a thing. It might clarify to folks that incompetence is not a reason to Impeach a sitting President; there has to be evidence of illegal activity and therein lies the rub. Obama has either legally ‘justified’ his actions, legally distanced himself from them or (rather appropriately) put Congress in the position of exposing their own malfeasance in concert with every action the Executive branch has taken that could be considered illegal. Despite “Tyler Durden’s” caterwaul to the contrary, Obama has done nothing without precedent set by Presidents before him as supported by Congress and the SCOTUS. For the record, that does include killing an established enemy American citizen without trial in a theater of operation, which, thanks to Obama’s predecessors is now the entire world. Obama’s mistake, if it was one, is that he was upfront about it, and the funny thing is that Americans didn’t care. Congress most certainly didn’t.

    I get an odd tic next to my eye every time I read or hear that “We must” Impeach the President whether it comes from the left or right. Certainly, progressives are more eloquent about it than Sarah Palin, masking the phrase. But they promote the same illusion and hide the same simple truth: “We” can’t do shit. Our elected representatives in Congress can, they hardly represent us at all, in part because we began losing power when we put our faith in an “Executive” as opposed to the responsible representation of ourselves *and* our peers. It could be argued that began with Prez Washington, but since Saint Reagan it is simply undeniable. The goal of the majority of our ‘representatives’ is to retain power by pleasing whomever they must and hiding that from us while maintaining the illusion that the President is to blame for all things awful.

    Here’s a cynical view: The reason the House is voting to sue rather than Impeach is because, unlike with Clinton, they can’t mask their own culpability for any real crimes committed, and they have no assurance that the Senate will convict. That is until at least after the election, and maybe not even then. If they do wish to Impeach, they will have to trump something ‘safe’ up, like lying about a blowjob, though probably less juicy and scandalous. If the Senate does not convict, then they will have afforded the President the political capital to do whatever he wants, just as Durden fears, and established Presidential power over their own. If the Senate does convict, they will be left with a wildly popular President Biden, the Republicants worst nightmare short of the second President Clinton. Either way, the American people will still not be given any clear look at the actions of the NSA, the CIA, military funding and use or the real workings of our ‘representatives’.

    • lizard19

      thank you for the comment, Rob. you make some good points, though in re-reading the post I didn’t see where anyone abused the pronoun “we” in the manner you suggest. you are right, of course, that there is nothing “we” can do about it. those lovely representatives propelled to DC can’t seem to escape the obligation they have to the money that gets them elected. a majority of the American population no longer factor into the equation.

      • You didn’t misuse the pronoun, Lizard. But it is a big Internet out there, and many if not most have.

    • Rob, each president on entering office absolves the one before, thereby setting precedent. It’s part of our rightward movement. It’s reality, but not an excuse for criminal behavior. Obama murdering an American citizen was no doubt brought to our attention in order to let us know that the executive had made further encroachments and usurpations, in a “Try and stop us” manner.

  6. Big Swede

    MSNBC’s obsession.

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/obama-impeachment-msnbc-fox-news/




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


  • Pages

  • Recent Comments

    Jon Tester’s G… on Senator Tester Backs Wall Stre…
    Digging Deeper: Exam… on A visit from a Montana Na…
    Washing Ton on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    Manitou springs on The Dark Side of Colorado
    C. Willie on American Poets: Robinson …
    C. Willie on American Poets: Robinson …
    bretagnebk on The Dark Side of Colorado
  • Recent Posts

  • Blog Stats

    • 1,636,140 hits
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 2,732 other followers

  • July 2014
    S M T W T F S
    « Jun   Aug »
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    2728293031  
  • Categories


%d bloggers like this: