Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
Published on May 28, 2010 By Dr Guy In Politics

For almost 8 years, many democrats (or just loony liberals) called for the impeachment of Bush.  The reasons were never substantial, the main one being they just could not stand him (probably because he beat Al Gore for President).  But even with significant majorities in both houses of congress during the last 2 years, there was no serious movement by democrat leaders to carry out the impeachment.  Why?

There was no impeachable offense, just offensive policies.

12 years ago, a president was impeached, but not removed from office.  it was only the 2nd time in history that had been done, the first being a republican.  And that was a legitimate impeachable offense, albeit it had nothing to do with his job performance.  But that is the issue.  Impeachment is the vehicle to make sure the president is not above the law.  36 years ago, a president resigned instead of facing impeachment, not for anything he did related to the office, but for crimes committed that anyone else would have gone to jail for.

Today, we are approaching another impeachable moment.  As the Sestak scandal continues to unravel, it is clear that at the least some bad judgment was used in trying to maintain the democrat majority.  At worse it is a crime.  But that is not what is going to catch Obama.  for it seems in order to protect his nascent administration, the administration is trying to cover up the dealings.

So what you ask?  I am sure many democrats are shouting that right now.  No crime, so no cover-up.  Au contraire!  There was no underlying crime that got Scooter Libby in hot water, but he was convicted of "obstruction of justice" - a cover up in other words.  The same thing that got Nixon out of office (it was never even reliably alleged that he had anything to do with the actual crime there either).

You would have thought that after Watergate (that gave us all subsequent gates apparently), Politicians would have learned.  Clinton did. He actually committed a crime, but when it came to throwing his staff under the bus, he was without peer.  But Obama does not seem to be that smart.  He seems bound and determined to repeat the mistake of Nixon.

Whether he was in on the bribe to Sestak or not, is irrelevant now.  What is apparent is that his administration is in rapid CYA mode to cover it up, and the stench goes all the way to the Lincoln Bedroom.

Nixon screwed up after 4 years, Clinton 6.  It has taken Obama less than 1 1/2.  He may not be smart, but he sure is fast.


Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on May 29, 2010

I'm really confused by this one.  I'm curious: 

 

What are the odds would you suspect Obama is going to get got through this?  At this point I'm laying better money on ugatz than I am anybody coming anywhere near Obama. 

on May 29, 2010

I'm really confused by this one.  I'm curious: 

 

What are the odds would you suspect Obama is going to get got through this?  At this point I'm laying better money on ugatz than I am anybody coming anywhere near Obama. 

What are you confused about?

As for your odds, no bet.  I agree with you, even if I do not know what ugatz is.

on May 29, 2010

Very good article and comments.

He may not be smart, but he sure is fast.

Add dirty...because he's playing with Clinton.

 

 

on May 29, 2010

What are the odds would you suspect Obama is going to get got through this?

I think it depends on how much the Congress wants to press it.

on May 29, 2010

What are you confused about? As for your odds, no bet. I agree with you, even if I do not know what ugatz is.

 

Ugatz is an Italian american coloquialism.  I forget the actual words---but it means literally "this penis". Typically it's said in place of 'bullshit'. 

 

The part that confuses me is that we've seen this song and dance before.  It was called plamegate.  Yeah yeah, wingers are going to try to say "yeah but this is really illegal" or some silliness, but look.  People have offered people jobs in favor of getting out of elections before.  Hillary Clinton---for example. 

I guess the part that confuses me is that I wouldn't lay a dime of getting Barry O on this one.  Not a single cent, in fact.  I was surfing through outwingnutistan and the Malkins of the world think they're going to get an impeachment out of this.  It seems kind of like grasping at straws. 

 

 

on May 30, 2010

It's just more phony outrage, dan.

on May 30, 2010

For almost 8 years, many democrats (or just loony liberals) called for the impeachment of Bush.  The reasons were never substantial, the main one being they just could not stand him (probably because he beat Al Gore for President).  But even with significant majorities in both houses of congress during the last 2 years, there was no serious movement by democrat leaders to carry out the impeachment.  Why?

The true irony here is, Prs. Bush did one thing for which he could have been legitimately impeached.  That is, he signed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill into law, even though he knew it was unconstitutional.

So why didn't the Democrat controlled Congress jump on that?  The fact is, they never intended to impeach him for anything, ever.  It was all just playing on the anger most Americans had for Bush.

As for Prs. Obama ever doing the honorable thing.  Being scummy has served him well his entire life, what motivation would he have to change now?

 

~~~~~

Aren't we glad the only honest person in Chicago politics was the one who made it to the White House? :~D

 

 

on May 30, 2010

Add dirty...because he's playing with Clinton.

NO, because he learned his politics in Chicago (as did Hillary).

on May 30, 2010

lulapilgrim

What are the odds would you suspect Obama is going to get got through this?
I think it depends on how much the Congress wants to press it.

No, regardless of the outcome of the elections in November, like Clinton, he will skate.  Democrats have never met slime they cannot love.

on May 30, 2010

Typically it's said in place of 'bullshit'.

Thanks!  I will remember that as it will pass censors more than BS will!

The part that confuses me is that we've seen this song and dance before. It was called plamegate. Yeah yeah, wingers are going to try to say "yeah but this is really illegal" or some silliness, but look. People have offered people jobs in favor of getting out of elections before. Hillary Clinton---for example.

As we saw with Nixon, it is not about a crime, but the cover-up.  Nixon was never associated with the crime, but he got hung because of his participation in the cover-up.  I think Blago is going to be hung for the same reason.  Yea, that is normal politics (even if it is illegal), but the outrage seems to come when they try to cover it up.

I was surfing through outwingnutistan and the Malkins of the world think they're going to get an impeachment out of this. It seems kind of like grasping at straws.

No, but I think you confuse impeachment with conviction.  There is a good chance he will be impeached, but not convicted.  Impeachment is just the certifying of the crimes.  The senate has to convict, and that will never happen.

on May 30, 2010

Infidel
It's just more phony outrage, dan.

No, it is legitimate.  Phony outrage was the left trying to convince everyone of Bush's impeachable offenses.  There were none, but that did not stop them.

on May 30, 2010

The true irony here is, Prs. Bush did one thing for which he could have been legitimately impeached. That is, he signed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill into law, even though he knew it was unconstitutional.

I disagree (although I agree it is unconstitutional).  It was not an impeachable offense.  It was just stupid.

Being scummy has served him well his entire life, what motivation would he have to change now?

Yes, but since he has those "boyish look", he has gotten away with it.  But unlike the sycophantic MSM, history will not be so kind.

Aren't we glad the only honest person in Chicago politics was the one who made it to the White House? :~D

Hillary?

on May 30, 2010

Apparently, the royal bee of stupidity (who has a reading comprehension  problem as well as a nasty streak of racism according to one poster) has decided to link to this article and provide no insight into the discussion.  I have bested him in every debate he has entered into with me, so he is just afraid to post on my blogs, although he has never been banned from it.  IN short, he is a coward, but then what would you expect from a brain dead sound byte repeating liberal?

on May 30, 2010

NO, because he learned his politics in Chicago (as did Hillary).

What are you talking about?  Are you really trying to connect Hillary Clinton to the Chicago Machine?  Really? Like, because she spent ages 1-17 in a far flung suburb of Chicago she's down with the machine? 

 

No, but I think you confuse impeachment with conviction. There is a good chance he will be impeached, but not convicted. Impeachment is just the certifying of the crimes.

I'm not confusing anything. So what are you odds on the impeachment happening? 

on May 30, 2010

What are you talking about? Are you really trying to connect Hillary Clinton to the Chicago Machine? Really? Like, because she spent ages 1-17 in a far flung suburb of Chicago she's down with the machine?

Think about it.  What part of your life has made the biggest impression relative to the amount of time?

I'm not confusing anything. So what are you odds on the impeachment happening?

Right now, zero.  Ask me again on November 3.

3 Pages1 2 3