|If certain ideologues get their way, they will be printing up similar tickets for Barack Obama|
Because Obama is not capable of running for another term as president (and would not want to seek a lower government post once he leaves the White House in January 2017), it means the only way that the hard-core conservative ideologues can bring the Obama legacy to a close in disgrace is to bring up the concept of impeachment.
EVEN IF OBAMA were to be impeached by the House of Representatives, then acquitted by the Senate (which is what happened to Bill Clinton, and what would occur if tried on Obama), they’d still be able to say that Obama was “impeached.”
Which sounds much more onerous than it really is. Then again, who cares about specifics?
Not the people who want the Republican Party to be the mechanism that enforces their conservative vision of what they want our society to be.
And apparently, not the Democrats – who are more than willing to use talk about the “I” word to try to raise money.
THE WASHINGTON POST reported earlier this month that certain Republican officials have talked of impeachment and have started the earliest procedural steps in that direction. It’s still at such an early point that it may go nowhere, and few are taking it seriously.
Except for those Dems – who sent out e-mails this weekend letting us know of screwball quotes from certain officials (Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., and Reps. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.; Kerry Bentivolio, R-Mich.; and Blake Farenthold, R-Texas) – who want campaign contributions so as to bolster the chance of electing 17 more Democrats to the House of Representatives in the 2014 election cycle.
|CLINTON: Impeached, but acquitted|
That is, after all, the number needed to give Obama a Democrat-leaning House, in addition to a favorable Senate.
The e-mail, of which I received a copy, says this is a matter of giving Obama, “a Congress that has his back.”
I’LL BE THE first to admit that bringing up impeachment to score political points is sleazy. Although a part of me thinks it is equally tacky to bring the issue up to solicit campaign cash. And “No,” I don’t plan to make a financial contribution.
Particularly since we ought to keep in mind that Obama had Democrat-controlled House and Senate legislative bodies during his first two years as president – only to have Democrats (particularly those from rural parts of the United States) in Congress be willing to go against Obama’s desires! It might not make ANY difference.
|ROGERS: A 'realistic' Dem?|
It’s why I wonder at times if early 20th Century humorist Will Rogers ought to be regarded as the ultimate political scientist.
He may have hit it right on the head when he said, amongst other things, “Democrats never agree on anything, that’s why they’re Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they would be Republicans.”