Impeachment Talk Backfires on the GOP


A furious push by conservatives to convince the House to vote articles of impeachment against President Obama for… oh, whatever they’re flipping out about at the moment … has backfired on the Republicans, so much so that House Speaker John Boehner is forced to pretend Obama is behind his own potential impeachment.

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) on Tuesday rejected talk of impeaching President Obama, saying that the issue was being driven by White House staff and congressional Democrats who are trying to gin up liberal voters for the fall midterm elections.

“This whole talk about impeachment is coming from the president’s own staff and coming from Democrats on Capitol Hill. Why? Because they are trying to rally their people to give money and to show up in this year’s election,” Boehner told reporters Tuesday morning. “We have no plans to impeach the president. We have no future plans.”

Boehner noted that the Democratic campaign arms have raised millions and millions of dollars through e-mail and direct mail pitches in recent weeks that raised the specter of a GOP-controlled Congress impeaching the president in 2015.

“It’s all a scam started by the Democrats at the White House,” Boehner said.

Paul Ryan joined in and repeated what is clearly the latest GOP talking point. How many examples would you like me to produce of Republican officials, legislators, conservative pundits, Tea Party groups and others demanding Obama’s impeachment? In fact, on the very same day that Boehner made his statement, Rep. Walter Jones, a member of his caucus, came out and said that Boehner’s lawsuit against Obama was a bad idea because they should impeach him instead. And he said that the fact that they won’t impeach him is “why the Republican Party is in trouble.”

This started with your base and now it’s backfiring on you. Of course the Democrats are going to fundraise off it. But it’s your people who are demanding it. The fact that it’s now helping the Democrats doesn’t make it their idea.

Comments

  1. raven says

    IIRC, in the last few days, both Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann called for impeachment.

  2. John Pieret says

    Rep. Walter Jones, a member of his caucus, came out and said that Boehner’s lawsuit against Obama was a bad idea because they should impeach him instead.

    It just goes to show how unscrupulous Obama is that he could somehow get a good, God-fearing, conservative to be a false flag for impeaching the President to make wingnuts look bad!

  3. raven says

    I don’t have a problem with the GOP impeaching Obama.

    1. If the house starts impeaching presidents for no other reason than they belong to a different party and they can, then…our democracy is over.

    2. This is simply politicians reversing what the people, the voters have decided.

    3. If the USA and its democracy are over with, we need to know this.

    4. So we can move on. For a while at least, it will probably be a fascist dictatorship, rule by economic oligarchies. AKA as the typical Loonytarian paradise. It might look a lot like Russia or the Ukraine.

    Or the USA might just split up like the old Soviet Union. The west coast doesn’t have much in common with the flyover states and the south has hated the rest of the USA since their Rebellion failed, 149 years ago.

  4. says

    ITS TRUE!!! OBAMAS BEHIND IT!!! HES EVEN SNEAKING AROUND SPREADING RUMORS ABOUT HIS CLINTONLIKE WANDERING PENIS HOPING THE REPUBLICANS WILL FALL FOR IT!!!

     
    OBAMA WILL DO ANYTHING TO DISTRACT FROM EVERYTHING ELSE!!!

  5. raven says

    Democracy does have a weak spot. The voters can always vote to..end the democracy. In theory any way.

    I’m trying to remember if that ever happened, democracies voting to not be democracies. If the GOP does impeach Obama, the ultimate perps would be the voters who keep voting for GOP/Tea Party wingnuts.

    1. IIRC, Hitler took power in Germany more or less legally. He and his party did win some votes. Mussolini in Italy same thing. Mori in Egypt although he didn’t last too long.

    I’m sure there must be others. The history of democracies voting themselves out of existence isn’t my strong point.

  6. Mr Ed says

    The party or personal responsibility sure has a hard time admitting any mistakes. If Boehner came out and said that any talk of impeachment without a specific crime was irresponsible and he wouldn’t support it I’d have more respect. Instead he sends up a demagogue trial balloon and when it doesn’t work he blames Obama .

  7. Chris J says

    I would love to see the GOP try to impeach Obama. Wouldn’t it be great to see a court demolish all of their paranoid conspiracy theories? The only thing it could do is drive their base further away, and draw the extremists closer.

    Plus, I just want to see what they’ll come up with for charges when they are put under oath.

  8. says

    rationalinks, “middle school children”? More like preschoolers, seeing a kid in their class with the toy they want to play with, and are willing to smash it to bits if they can’t get it for themselves.

  9. doublereed says

    If the house starts impeaching presidents for no other reason than they belong to a different party and they can, then…our democracy is over.

    Our democracy already ended. Wasn’t there a study that showed that public opinion does not effect public policy at all, but instead the opinion of donors do?

    The fact is that ever since Buckley v Valeo and First National Bank v Belotti, our democracy has been not-so-slowly eroding. We lost it. We can get it back, but it’s gone right now.

  10. dingojack says

    Damned ‘activist’/’supremacist’ Republicans deliberately overthrowing the will of voting public….
    Oops, sorry that only applies to judges who go against your conservative beliefs. My bad.
    @@
    Dingo

  11. caseloweraz says

    Shorter Boehner: It’s their fault! They sucker-punched us when we were calling them dirty names!

    Brings to mind a movie in which Robert Conrad played one of several men being recruited to join a mercenary outfit. A younger guy challenged him to arm-wrestle and while the guy was working on his right arm, Conrad punched him out with his left. The mercenary leader told them to get that unconscious fool out of there.

  12. magistramarla says

    Ironically, the banner ad at the top of this is a tea-party sponsored one asking me to vote NOW whether the GOP should impeach Obama.

  13. tuibguy says

    House votes to impeach, a Democratic Senate is going to vote 2/3 to remove him from office? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

    Yes, that would make for a Biden Presidency for sure, wouldn’t it?

    Then they impeach Biden and Boehner (assuming he survives as Speaker) becomes President! I can totally see the Senate falling for that old trick!

    No, I rather think that the whole impeachment talk was started as a way to raise money for Republicans who were gonna get tough on that damn usurper in the White House.

  14. Pierce R. Butler says

    Chris J @ # 8: Wouldn’t it be great to see a court demolish all of their paranoid conspiracy theories?

    The only “court” that would hear a presidential impeachment would be the Senate sitting in special session (though the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would preside).

    As tuibguy @ # 19 & others point out, unless this November’s elections turn things around, Obama’s safe while that has a Democratic majority (or even near-majority – a conviction would require 67 votes minimum. However, such a process would not fulfill your wish – the Democrats don’t have what(ever) it takes to “demolish” paranoid conspiracy theories – or much of anything beyond their own credibility, the national economy, and (with major help from the Pentagon) small distant nations offering no threat.

  15. grumpyoldfart says

    When the US politicians sit down and plan these manouevres they must laugh and laugh and laugh.

  16. D. C. Sessions says

    You know, if the House sends a Bill of Impeachment to the Senate and the Senate fails to convict, there’s another tactic the House could employ:

    Vote another Bill of Impeachment. As many as it takes (forty or so is a good start.) The Senate can’t block them all!

  17. Nick Gotts says

    IIRC, Hitler took power in Germany more or less legally. He and his party did win some votes. Mussolini in Italy same thing. Mori in Egypt although he didn’t last too long. – raven@5

    Hitler came to power because through a deal with other right-wing forces (Hugenberg’s Nationalist Party, President von Hindenburg, von Papen, the army leadership) despite having lost some ground in the November 1932 elections. He then used emergency powers, allowed for in the constitution but passed on false claims of an imminent Communist rising, to disable the left. The Catholic Centre Party, together with his right-wing allies, subsequently gave him the majority for the “Enabling Act” which established his dictatorship. Mussolini’s rise to power was similar, although his initial appointment as Prime Minister was the result of a display of force, the “March on Rome”. Democracy in Egypt was ended by the military coup against Mori which was, in a striking display of stupidity, called for by many of those who had forced Mubarak out and the military to concede elections not long before. Mori himself may have intended to establish a theocracy, but clearly lacked the power to do so, and there is no reason to believe those who voted for the Muslim Brotherhood wanted one: the MB was, simply, the only coherent political force outside the military, and had a long record of social welfare work.

    There are other possible cases – the Iranian vote for an “Islamic Republic”, and most recently, the re-election of Viktor Orbán in Hungary, for example, but I can’t think of any where an electorate has made a free, clear choice to end democracy.

  18. colnago80 says

    Re Nick Gotts @ #23

    Although he was well short of a majority, Frankenberger’s party was the largest in the German Parliament. The big push to appoint him Chancellor came from the industrialists (e.g. Krupp , Thyssen, etc.) who were terrified about a possible takeover by the Communists and their fellow travelers on the left, who they feared would nationalize their enterprises without compensation. As I understand it, from the position of hindsight, the likelihood that the Communists would takeover was considerably exaggerated by Frankenberger (interestingly enough, his propaganda sounds much like the jeremiads the tea baggers send Obama’s way).

    Relative to the situation in Egypt, there was every indication that Morsi would move to consolidate his power by purging the army of secularists, much like the ayatollahs and Erdogan have done in Iran and Turkey. The notion that Morsi and his Islomofascist allies were somehow an improvement on Mubarak is laughable. The problem in the Middle East is that there are no good guys. There are only bad guys and slightly less bad guys.

  19. dingojack says

    SLC – Erdogan has purged the army of secularists? Really? Could we get a citation for that please (oh and not Israel’s answer to WhirledNutsDaily thanks but a creditable source).
    Dingo

  20. colnago80 says

    Re Dachshund @ #25

    This was done several years ago and there were articles about it in reputable newspapers at the time. As I understand it, Erdogan claimed that there was talk in certain circles in the army about a coup to remove him from power. As to whether this was a real possibility, who knows. However, given that the Turkish Army has, in the past, ousted governments it didn’t like, quite possibly Erdogan had something real to be concerned about. Given the creeping Islamization which has been underway ever since Erdogan and his Muslim Brotherhood thugs gained power, it is not surprising that the Turkish Army, which has been the defender of the secularization of the country since Ataturk might consider a coup.

  21. dingojack says

    So no sources (that’s better than the usual non-creditable ones, I guess). [shrug].
    Dingo

  22. Synfandel says

    Boehner: “We have no future plans.”

    That’s not really true. They plan to oppose anything and everything that the Democrats propose.

  23. dogmeat says

    As I understand it, from the position of hindsight, the likelihood that the Communists would takeover was considerably exaggerated by Frankenberger (interestingly enough, his propaganda sounds much like the jeremiads the tea baggers send Obama’s way).

    Of course they sound alike, as reactionaries they are ideologically very close to one another. In Hitler’s case he wanted to turn back the clock and restore Germany’s economic and military greatness. In the case of our Tea Party crowd, they want to restore the country to the greatness of a mythical 50s that never really existed. Conservatives like the status quo, tradition, etc., reactionaries like some aspects of the status quo, but believe the country has progressed too far and want to roll things back.

    In all of these cases, their enemies will be the liberals and radicals on the other end of the spectrum. They will also find scape goats to justify their policies and to present as a reason why the “good” people of the country are in trouble. In Germany it was predominantly Jewish people (though they weren’t alone), in the modern US you have a hodgepodge of people who fit the bill, brown people, immigrants, feminists, intellectuals, etc. I would argue that Muslims and Latino immigrants are probably the closest to the Jewish equivalent in this era, they’re the ones the reactionary Tea Party talks about rounding up, sending to camps, killing, etc.

    In these cases the political opponents are always on the verge of destroying all that is good and true about the country. The Communists and other radicals and liberals were the threat in Germany. In the US they’ve dedicated themselves to the idea that a slightly right of center guy is a radical and that radical communists and socialists are the threat. In both cases they have to get the people to ignore the realities of these opponents. Ignore the fact that Communists in both countries have virtually zero power and even less chance to actually influence policy. Ignore the economic realities of their opponents, and portray them as an all powerful threat to conservative “values.”

    Hitler was successful because he was able to exploit the political and economic instability in Germany in order to get a high level position in the government. Here the reactionaries aren’t quite that successful. They’ve been able to disrupt our political process and cause major gridlock, which they then blame on Obama and general political “corruption,” which has led to the argument that they’re all corrupt and should all be voted out, but they haven’t managed to get to the point the Nazis did in Germany.

Leave a Reply