Mike Huckabee: Obama Is “Worthy” Of Impeachment
Mike Huckabee, who many believe is at least considering the possibility of running for President in 2016, is the latest Republican to mention the possibility of impeaching President Obama, and he isn’t rejecting the idea:
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) on Monday said that he believes President Obama has committed many impeachable offenses.
Iowa radio host Steve Deace asked Huckabee if Obama has done anything “worthy of being impeached,” according to a recording on Right Wing Watch.
“Absolutely,” Huckabee responded. “There’s no doubt that he has done plenty of things worthy of impeachment.”
The former governor and presidential candidate then lamented that there wouldn’t be enough votes in the Senate to actually impeach Obama.
“But I think it’s an important argument to make, that there are a number of things that this president has done in the overuse of an executive power, his complete ignoring of the law, even his own law,” Huckabee added.
Here’s the audio:
So much for that idea that Republicans aren’t the one’s talking about impeachment, huh?
Democratic plant.
So, what did Huckabee say that was so wrong?
1) Obama has committed acts that, in most objective minds, constitute impeachable offenses. (Details cited, but more available upon request.)
2) As long as the Democrats hold at least 34 Senate seats, any impeachment of Obama will fail, regardless of the merits of #1.
3) The Democrats are pretty much guaranteed to keep at least 34 seats in the Senate through the end of Obama’s term.
4) Empty talk about impeaching Obama only helps Obama, and hurts his opposition.
5_ Ergo, there is no point in impeaching Obama, or even talking about it, as it’s all irrelevant.
Upon reflection of point 4, I’m withdrawing my offer of offering examples of what Obama has done that merits impeachment. I’ve said it several times before, and there are plenty of sites out there that list plenty of grounds, but all such talk does is help Obama. The idea that I could actually shame some of the Obama shills here with truth was always risible.
ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/Submit
adjective
1. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Jenos, as he/she proves in almost every thread, has a very tenuous relationship with the concepts of fact, truth, and objectivity.
Clearly not the Royal We, despite Boehner’s desperate desires to invoke the majestic plural. Although I do think he was telling the truth when he pointed out that they have no plans for the future at all. Some honesty is better then none?
@Jenos Idanian #13: Re your point 2) – Nixon resigned when it was clear many REPUBLICANS would vote to impeach and to convict. This was because the evidence made it clear to Congress and to the public that Nixon had committed impeachable offenses. Democrats will not vote to impeach or convict Obama because, contra your 1), this threshold has not been met. And thank you for promising to not trot out your charges. It’s like listening to global warming deniers. It’s just tiresome.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
As usual, your kind rant about what President Obama has done wrong, but you really have NO evidence to back up your claim. Is that your way out of promising to list your evidence of impeachable offenses, just change your “mind” about doing so, sort of on the fly? So at the beginning of your hate rant, you had this evidence. But at the end you decide it would benefit the “enemy” if you did so? The logical mind would have scratched the article at that point because anyone reading that crap could readily see how illogical and mean-spirited this whole rant is.
In conclusion, you, sir, (or madam), are just the ordinary, run of the mill racist. And not an honest broker, at that!
Don’t know how old you are, but I hope you are young enough to someday grow up out of your sick, racist mindset.
@Jenos:
Without getting into the whole partisan rigamarole, I would point out that it doesn’t matter one whit what an objective mind considers an offense, what matters is what the law considers one. Congress is bound by law, whether they like it or not, and they must abide by it. Unless it is an actual provable legal offense, it is not impeachment-worthy – that is what objective means. There are many things I personally don’t approve of this administration has done but there isn’t one I can point to that fits what the Constitution holds out as criteria for removal.
And Boehner knows it. Hence the lawsuit – he needs legal standing (or better yet, a judgement in his favor) for a solid basis. There’s no toehold so they’re trying to carve one out.
How can we NOT impeach him? He extended a deadline after all. I mean, if that’s not an impeachable offense I don’t know what is.
@gVOR08: I see what you’re doing, and it’s unfair. You’re arguing that based on the Nixon, Clinton, and Obama histories, that Republicans hold officials to standards and Democrats instinctively protect their own and attack others. But I think that’s an unfair, partisan argument.
@Pinky: You could make the argument with Supreme Court nominations, too, that Republicans will vote against the wishes of the president even if he’s one of their own, but Democrats won’t. And the most recent case I can come up with of a Cabinet appointment being voted down in the Senate was one of their own, John Tower, not meeting with Republican Senators’ approval, but again, I think that’s just a petty political argument.
Does anyone really take Huckabee seriously other than religious zealots?
Well, this conclusively proves that impeachment talk is completely the result of Democratic Party fund raising efforts, and is not the result of anything said by prominent Republicans.
And by the way, naturally Huckabee provides us with nothing that represents an impeachable offense, but what else is new?
@Pinky:
Did you read his comment with your glasses on? Because that’s not at all what he said.
The history is this: Republicans voted to impeach Nixon when it became clear they had no other choice. They voted to impeach Clinton for purely political reasons; perjury in a civil case does not rise to the level of impeaching a President…which was borne out by the process. And Democrats will not vote to impeach Obama simply because there is no there, there…while Republicans are chomping at the bit to do so…again for purely political reasons.
Look…if there were impeachable offenses then they would show up in Boehner’s lawsuit…but all he has is the delay of the enactment of a small portion of a law…an executive action which has plenty of precedent to defend it.
@Pinky: @Pinky: 2 thumbs up for making me laugh.
Or it could just mean that GOP Presidents are so blinded by ideological purity that they pick people so incompetent/corrupt that even their own party can’t go along with it, and recent history shows they don’t buck their President near enough.
Shorter Jenos – “I’ve got nothing, but please, oh please pay attention to meeeeeeeeeee”
@OzarkHillbilly: Laugh too long at the abyss, and the abyss will start laughing at you.
Frankly, I’d like to hear evidence of just ONE impeachable offense. No more hand-waving, it’s time for some actual facts that prove unlawful activity.
@Pinky:
John Boehner looked into the abyss and he saw orange spray tan and frivolous lawsuits – he was pleased.
Heh, here is exactly where establishment Republican’s interests diverge from that of the right wing media empire . The right wing media pundits have to keep throwing red media to the base to keep up ratings because $$$.
This is bad for the Republican establishment because among other things they want to keep the Obama electorate on the side lines for the 2014 elections. If for example, black voters in red states are convinced that there really is something to this impeachment talk if the Republicans regain the Senate, then all the “voter ID” restrictions the Republicans have thought up won’t prevent them voting at high levels in 2014. It might also drive young voters and women voters at high levels to the polls, which would off set the “fundamentals” that tilt the battlefield in favor of the Republicans.
It will be interesting to see the actual polling data come in September as people focus on the elections. If we see Obama voters showing up as likely voters because of impeachment talk, then the Republican establishment just might regret ( again) not being able to control its right wing media monster.
@Pinky:
No. You don’t. I’m pointing out to @Jenos Idanian #13: that there are such things as objective reality and standards of evidence, and none of his BS charges stand up. It’s not clear what “high crimes and misdemeanors” means. But AS I SAID it was clear to everyone that Nixon had committed some. It is far from clear to anyone but the most rabid GOP partisan that Obama has. You’re guilty of extreme both-sides-do-it. Dems impeached Nixon. Reps want to impeach Obama. All the same. Except that in your mind Rs were high minded and voted against Nixon. Sorry. No. Wrong.
This didn’t happen. It’s all a Democrat fundraising ploy.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
I see you have given up on your ”Republicans aren’t really talking about this, it’s all a Democratic ploy gambit.” That at least is a step in the right direction.
@President Camacho: I don’t know; he could be the dark horse of the apocalypse.
(H/T Mark Russell)
I’m pretty sure this is a website run by the Democratic Party…
http://impeachobamaweek.net/
@C. Clavin: I saw a bunch just like the picture in Doug’s earlier post on a freeway overpass in Indiana last year. I flipped them off. Now I’m sorry I did. They must have really been good Democrats, probably black Acorn operatives, in whiteface Tea party disguises.
Impeachment!!! I think we all know what the Huckster really wants to do.
@ C. Clavin
Dude, Obama personally coded that site.
On second though, if Obama was writing code, he would do a much better job of it.
From Huckabee and most other so called “Constitutional Conservatives” have adopted an interpretation of the Constitution that pretty well defines any Liberal Democrat in office as violating the “Constitution” as it was written by God. Of course, since God speaks directly with these people, they want to amend the Constitution in order to get rid of every progressive institution and law passed since 1861. For instance, in 2007 the Supreme Court held that EPA had to regulate CO2 admissions under the Clean Air Act. Obama’s EPA , after diddling about to see if he could work out something with the Republicans (fat chance), issued the rules the Supreme Court told them they had to issue under Act. But for Republicans, who believe the Clean Air Act is unconstitutional, Obama’s action is a usurpation of power and a “Constitutional Offense.” http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/13/religious-conservatives-behind-push-to-rewrite-u-s-constitution-using-obscure-maneuver/
@Sherparick: Just checked your link. Hilarious. Any other parts of the Constitution seem obscure to the writer? Anything else snuck in 200 years ago that he happened to miss? Thirty four states obscurely agree – what, hidden behind a tree or something? Then thirty eight have to approve any results – I guess the plan was to do so in a way that no one noticed. All seems very obscure to me. Also, the linked article has nothing to do with your comment, which itself had nothing to do with the original article.
@Pinky:
Actually that was fairly humorous even if wrong. Its wrong because the difference between Nixon and Obama (and the impeachment of Clinton) was that the American public was strongly against Nixon continuing as president, while the majority of the public were and are against Clinton’s and Obama’s impeachment.
Rest assured, if the public opinion turned against Obama, the Democrats would turn against him in a second. “Throwing under the bus” is a time honored tradition across the board (and across the globe) in politics.
@Sherparick: I just reread that Rawstory article. I wonder, did you not realize that it didn’t make your point when you posted it, or was it a scare tactic to pretend to corroborate the text of your comment?
Anyway, the radio host behind the push is Mark Levin, not Glenn Beck. But for some reason they didn’t use a picture of Levin. Instead, they put Beck’s big WASPy head at the top. Why? Maybe part of the narrative? The article also failed to point out that groups like Americans United for Separation of Church and State could just as easily dominate an Article V convention as the religious right could. I guess that didn’t fit the narrative either. Crazy Christians get more clicks.
And the Georgia Senate did not vote “to set aside the Constitution written by the Founding Fathers and start over again”. They voted to support a measure written by the Founding Fathers. Surely the guys at Rawstory believe in the right to amend the Constitution? Surely if they have that much confidence in the Founding Fathers, they’d go along with the Article V passage? Or was the mention of the Founding Fathers just a smokescreen?
This is funny. The right has been talking about impeachment since the day Obama was sworn in, using it to flack their base and raise funds. Now that the dems have picked up the same tactic and are using to rouse THEIR base, oh, the horror! And the really uproarious thing is that Obama really doesn’t have to DO anything, all he has to do to send the wingnuts into a screaming rage demanding his immediate impeachment is just keep floating trial balloons.
He’s discovered your hot button, and he’s punching it. Every time he does, you howl, shriek, chatter, and jump up and down hurling poo. All the RWNJ bobbleheads denounce Obama’s “lawlessness”, and encourage all conservatives to call their reps and DEMAND that he be impeached! The dems then look to their own base and go ‘See? Told you – they’re serious, they intend to impeach Obama if you don’t stop them’. This is political judo on an epic level, Obama’s harnessing your own madness to advance his cause, and you can’t stop either him or yourselves.
What’s even funnier is that the more the RINOs (who remember what happened the LAST time they pulled that stunt) say that no, they’re NOT going to impeach Obama and that it’s a really bad idea, it just makes the base even more furious. Seriously, this is a lose-lose for the GOP, and a win-win for the dems. And the really great thing about it is that they’ve done this to themselves. The irony here is so thick you could cut it up and sell it by the pound . . .
@President Camacho: I think Mike is a nice person, but sometimes misstates or does not think out his views. Some of the attacks on him have been unfair. He is a good Christian man.
I am not a Republican. I am a supporter of the Southern Democrat party.