Sarah Palin Says It’s Time To Impeach Obama
What could possibly go wrong?
Sarah Palin has become the most prominent Republican polemicist to endorse the idea of impeaching President Obama:
Former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin called for President Barack Obama’s impeachment in her most direct language yet in a column Tuesday morning.
“It’s time to impeach; and on behalf of American workers and legal immigrants of all backgrounds, we should vehemently oppose any politician on the left or right who would hesitate in voting for articles of impeachment,” Palin wrote in a column published Tuesday on the conservative website Breitbart. “The many impeachable offenses of Barack Obama can no longer be ignored. If after all this he’s not impeachable, then no one is.”
The former Alaskan governor accused Obama of deliberately leaving the border open and allowing undocumented immigrants to come in at will, ignoring American laws and driving the country deeper into debt.
“His unsecured border crisis is the last straw that makes the battered wife say, ‘no mas,'” she wrote. “President Obama’s rewarding of lawlessness, including his own, is the foundational problem here.”
Native-born citizens and legal immigrants, she said, are the ones “getting screwed” following the rules while undocumented immigrants are exempt.
I haven’t written much about the issues going on at the southern border right now dealing with large numbers of mostly young Central American refugees, mostly because I don’t feel like I’ve wrapped my brain around what’s going on enough to common on it, but I have noticed that what Palin is saying here has become something of an article of faith among the hard right. Rather than accepting the idea that the crisis is due in large part to deteriorating social conditions in Central America combined with a law signed into law by President Bush that bars the U.S. from automatically deporting children arriving from nations other than Canada or Mexico have created this crisis, they believe that the crisis was deliberately created by President Obama. The motives for this supposed conspiracy depend on who you’re talking to and include everything from forcing Congresses hand on immigration reform by creating a crisis on the border to overwhelming the resources of Republican states like Texas and Arizona. As with many things in politics, the fact that these conspiracy theories aren’t true isn’t nearly as important as the fact that it is widely believed among people on the right, and that it is motivating their actions.
As for Palin’s decision to jump on the impeachment bandwagon, the wisest thing to do would seem to be to dismiss it as a ranting with about as much importance as that from any other conservative pundit or blogger. After all, it has now been a full five years since Palin quit her first term in office after serving just over two years in office and embarking on the media career that she has become known for. At least twice since then, for President in 2012 and then for Senate in Alaska this year, she has demurred on any effort to run for political office ever again, and nobody seriously expects her to be a candidate in 2016. Outside of the Tea Party wing, nobody takes her pontificating on Fox News or Facebook very seriously anymore. She is, in other words, not nearly the political force she might have been had she stayed in office.
At the same time, Aaron Blake argues that Palin endorsing the idea of impeachment could place the GOP in a bind, principally because of the part of the party that she continues to appeal to:
Palin is hardly the first GOP politician to raise the issue of impeachment over the past couple years. Others include Sens. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Reps. Blake Farenthold (R-Tex.), Kerry Bentivolio (R-Mich.), Michael Burgess (R-Tex.), Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.), former congressmen Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) and Allen West (R-Fla.), and the South Dakota Republican Party. Not all of these folks called for Obama’s impeachment directly, but all of them suggested that it is or should be on the table.
What none of these folks have, though, is a national following. That’s where Palin comes in. She’s the first Republican of any significant national stature to make this call. And she’s the kind of figure who could potentially recruit others to the cause — people who will want to be heard. Palin surely doesn’t carry the kind of weight she once did in the GOP, but she still has a significant tea party following and is highly popular among the conservative base.
If a significant pro-impeachment portion of the conservative base does materialize — and that’s a big “if” — it will put Republican lawmakers in the unenviable position of responding to questions about whether they, too, agree with the idea of impeachment.
From there, there are three options:
1) Oppose impeachment and risk making yourself a target in the 2016 primary
2) Try to offer a non-response that doesn’t really support or oppose impeachment
3) Support impeachment and, while likely saving your own hide from becoming a target, exacerbate the problem with the larger Republican Party.
Does Palin jumping on the impeachment bandwagon mean that it’s inevitably going to happen? Of course not, and it also doesn’t mean that the Republican leadership is definitely going to be pressured to act on this issue in the manner that Blake posits. However, when you start seeing people like Palin who have large followings on the right say things like this, even though it is quite obviously completely insane for reasons I don’t think I need to get into here, it does make one wonder. If Palin is joined by others, especially prominent conservatives like Mark Levin and others, then the pressure on the GOP to act could begin to increase, especially if the GOP captures the Senate in November. It’s completely insane, it bears no logical relationship to the facts on the ground, and unlike the Impeachment of Bill Clinton it would carry with it the potential to do real harm to the GOP’s political future. However under the right circumstances, and as Blake lays out, that’s exactly how it could play out. And, in some sense, the GOP will have Sarah Palin to thank for it if it does.
This is, I think, is the reason for Boehner threatening a lawsuit against Obama.
I think she should run for president. The latest Quinnipiac poll has no candidate breaking out. Rand Paul leads at 11%.
If Sarah Palin got in she’d immediately suck up most of the percentages for people like Huckabee, Jindal and Cruz. She’d be the front-runner with probably 15%. Then she could raise her speaking fees and go to the debates and attract scads of the attention she craves.
You forgot the fact that, according to the Hollywood Reporter and Politico, she’s angling for some sort of talk show. AND…she’s signed on for a second season of “Amazing America,” a very thought-provoking anthology show that showcases the creme de la creme of American high culture, such as guys shooting rifles at broken television sets. So she has to keep her name in the news in order to market her brand.
And it’s possible that donations to Sarahpac and the Sarah Palin Legal Defense Fund may be down. Gotta get those bucks up.
IMPEACH…IMPEACH…IMPEACH…please, please, please…IMPEACH…
(Good luck getting 2/3rds of the Senate…no matter what happens in November.)
The real problem for the GOP in this…is that this loser/quitter pathological liar operating from the way-way-way-way-outside makes people like Paul and Boehner and Turtle-Face seem almost like rational actors…instead of the nut-jobs they really are. It’s going to be hard to reform the party when the inmates are running the asylum.
There’s a reason Boehner hasn’t spelled out his case for a lawsuit…he doesn’t have one.
I’ve said it many times before…Conservatism has much to offer…but these folks aren’t Conservative.
The idea that there is a way to stop people from coming across the border is absurd. We have spent millions of dollars to build fences only to see people tunneling underneath them.
In the late 60s and early 70s I worked for the DIA in Europe. Most of the East/West border had two fences with a mine field in between and a guard tower ever quarter of a mile. Enough people still got through to keep me gainfully employed debriefing people.
Shorter Palin – “Give me your money.”
I wonder how actual battered wives feel about Palin trivializing them.
The question here is whether Obama has committed impeachable offenses, not whether to dismiss Palin as a valid source of political or legal opinion. Is lying to the public an impeachable offense? If Obama can be shown to have lied to the public numerous times, should he be impeached by the House? Then, given that there is incontrovertible proof that he has done so, and is indeed impeached, what are the chances that the Democratic majority in the Senate will not uphold it? Despite such serious evidence that does indeed exist, I believe Obama would get a pass from the Harry Reid Senate, probably claiming that there were no lies, just mistakes (repeated multiple times over months without any redeeming corrections or apologies, nor were there any retractions, just extensions to his remarks that did not correct the harm of the misinformation way after the fact!). So much for the integrity and honesty of this Senate majority and this presidency. Lying to the public should be punished.
“Is lying to the public an impeachable offense?”
Do you think Reagan should have been impeached for saying that we did not trade arms for hostages?
Excellent question…No. Answered. Done.
Or Bush43 for lying us into the greatest Foreign Policy blunder in our history.
Or Bush41 for saying “No New Taxes”?
@C. Clavin: Or Bill Clinton for saying, “I did not have sex with that woman.” Oh, wait…..
You guys, I think we should listen to her on this.
If we got rid of Obama, he’d be leaving partway through his elected term
If anyone is an expert on leaving the post earlier than planned, its Palin
How’d that turn out?
It’s not time to impeach Obama.
Maybe after the midterms.
If the Republicans take the Senate this season, I think there will be an impeachment. It won’t go anywhere (no way they get 2/3rd of the Senate), but with that “cover” you could easily get Senate Republicans (the majority) to vote for impeachment to CYA, and the commercials about those horrible Dems blocking the will of the majority of the House and Senate and “public” (these loons always claim to be speaking for the majority) practically write themselves.
If lying to the public is impeachable, every President and congress-critter, EVER, is unfit for office. The punishment for lying should be at the polls, but we don’t seem to good at voting the bums out (see the articles here recently about various forms of democracy for why our system isn’t actually that effective any more).
From Palin’s squeal…
Apparently, appointing federal judges is now an impeachable offense. If you think she’s a leader, you’re an idiot and I feel sorry for you.
Let’s take at face value your radical idea, that lying to the public constitutes an impeachable offense, for just a moment.
Who in the Republican Caucus is qualified to bring these charges? It’ll take no more than 30 seconds to produce a list of lies by John Boehner that extends the the length of your arm.
Palin herself is a pathological liar.
And recently the SCOTUS ruled that lying is indeed free-speech…9-0.
So are you saying that free-speech ends at the White House door? Where does it say that in the Constitution?
Frankly I don’t personally see that Obama is such a liar…but even if he is…let those without sin cast the first stone, brother.
The problem that Republicans like you have is that you got beat at the polls…by a landslide…and now you want to use a kangaroo court to eek out what you think is a victory of some kind.
Why do you hate America so?
I’ll take you seriously if you can show you were for impeaching Bush when he lied about the reasons for going into Iraq. Or the waterboarding.
Seriously, is “being from the other party” really enough of a reason to impeach?
Maybe we should make a ritual of it – like the British speaker having to be dragged to his chair at the start of Parliament. The impeachment proceedings could automatically be started by the opposition right after the election (great TV event, maybe have bands and even declare it a public holiday).
It appears we are…whenever the Republicanists are out of the White House.
For those who respect Conservatism…but not today’s Republicans as exemplified by Mrs. Palin…
Impeachment was not meant to be used as a tool to harass a President who belongs to the opposing party. This nonsense is damaging the country. Well, no surprise there. Modern conservative politics – party before country.
@C. Clavin: Indeed!
@C. Clavin: Did Excitable Andy finally pry himself away from finding out THE TRUTH about Trig Palin’s birth? Good lord, he spent more time fixated on Sarah Palin’s ladyparts than any self-respecting gay man should…
Impeaching Obama would be a very bad move, politically. And a non-starter, as noted, because no matter what evidence were to be uncovered on Obama, there’s no way in hell Harry Reid would ever let the Senate convict him.
But this does do some good: it compels the Obama lickspittles to actually discuss Obama’s actions that rise to the level of “impeachable offense.” I’ve seen lists that come up with at least half a dozen issues that qualify, and just drafting Articles of Impeachment that spell out just what offenses Obama has committed, or tolerated.
Congress is a political body. Anything could be an impeachable offense, if enough House members vote for it. It has nothing to do with the law or the Constitution.
Fair point, I probably should have limited the ritual to Republicans, since they’re the only ones who’ve taken to it.
I’m half serious about making it a ritual; both with Clinton and now with Obama the major crime they seem to have committed is winning an election as a Democrat. If it was about lawlessness, the GOP would have impeached Reagan and Bush Jr as well.
@mannning: If we impeached every politician in office for lying to the public Washington DC would be a ghost town.
@mantis: Isn’t it high crimes and misdemeanors? Hell, that could be flicking a cigarette butt off the Truman Balcony.
Ah, the clown car has arrived.
@Jenos Idanian #13: Well, if you read the story of Trig’s childbirth as related by Palin, either she was incredibly negligent about her about-to-be-born son, or just plain lied her head off as to when she started giving birth.
Yeah, the first thing I’m going to do when I start having contractions to give birth to a child that we KNOW has birth defects and will probably need to be in a NICU is to finish giving a talk in Texas, then wait to fly across the country to Alaska, then ride in a car for several hours to get back to my local hospital which doesn’t have anything out of the ordinary to treat fragile and disabled infants.
Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.
Perhaps not, but we could make it damned hard and costly to do so, rather than letting herds of women and children stream over unhindered, not to mention the undesirables that are now not seriously impeded.
You’ve just described what’s known as a “fundamentalist abortion,” or at least an an attempt at one.
And she took two planes: one to Seattle, then one from Seattle to Anchorage. Then she was driven to Wasilla, where the baby was delivered by the family g.p., not an obstetrician, much less anyone versed in the care of premature infants with Down’s syndrome and a cardiac problem.
What a show! Most commenters here sign up for allowing liars to lead the country! “They all do it!” So if you do allow lying to the public, how can we believe anything said by the incumbent President? Did he lie about anything important? What a wonderful leadership we will have, and I guess do have! Regardless of the underlying reasons for the lies, they must not be condoned. If we cannot legally impeach a President for lying to the people, at least we can not give him a second term, or we can ignore him in his lame-duck period and in his afterlife as President. This I hold for any President, given the validated evidence. Is this what is promoted by liberals and progressives? Liars Lead! Then it seems rather difficult to believe any of them at all on any matter.
Most people here are signing up for not impeaching Presidents for simply being Democratic.
Well, I suppose we could do it in stages so as not to interrupt business, but we would have a rollicking good time trying to find 500 or so honest men! Meanwhile, we could make it very hot for those proven to lie, even if we couldn’t depose them. The media appears to avoid shining the light on such liars too strongly. I wonder why?
@grumpy realist: There doesn’t have to be a plot. These actions are consistent with the behavior of an idiot, which many people have noted Sarah Palin to be.
@mannning: Did you fulminate equivalently about Reagan and Iran-Contra? And George W. Bush and those missing WMDs?
If not, then you don’t have a leg to stand on.
Many if not most African-Americans are upset by the Republican response to the Obama presidency. Impeachment would make it worse. I have a feeling that other groups with a history of social exclusion – Asian-Americans, Hispanics, even elderly Jews like me – would respond almost as strongly. Impeachment would be good for my party, but a catastrophe for the country. So I hope cooler heads in the Republican party will prevail, if there are any.
@rachel: Being an idiot doesn’t absolve you from your duty of care. “Duh, I never thought that throwing 10 lb rocks off the top of an overpass might kill anyone!” or “Duh, I was just shooting my gun in the air, I never meant to harm anyone!”
Judge: Nice try. You’ve still got a charge of criminal negligence against you.
So Palin lucked out, because no damage was shown. I agree she’s enough of a dim-bulb she doesn’t realize the legal risk she was putting herself under if something HAD gone wrong.
@mannning: Yeah, well your little crusade will be taken a lot more seriously when you decide to lead it against a leader from your own party. But apparently you only decide this is a crucial issue when the other guy is in power…. so forgive me if I don’t fall all over myself worshipping your Diogenes-like search for honesty.
what could go wrong?
Joe Biden, that’s what…. the best insurance policy anyones ever bought.
The problem here seems to be that lying is condoned, and that they will remain in office. I hold that lying is detrimental to the public, and that includes federal officers of all kinds, including judges. Lying to a federal officer is punishable in the courts, and should be punishable for the highest reaches of government. I do not care which party is committing the lying, it should be stopped and penalized as a crime on the public.
It is precisely because I love my country that I want it run free of lies, You apparently don’t!
You know as well as I do that the House doesn’t need any particular reason to impeach President Obama – anything will do. By your standard, a very low one indeed, impeachment is a piece of toxic cake.
Personally, I believe that the only reason that congressional Republicans have not initiated impeachment proceedings is that they need to get the 2014 mid-terms squared away first. If they take the Senate and are within 3 or 4 votes of the supermajority necessary to convict, I’m guessing that it will be on.
Finally, I hope that Sarah Palin runs for president. We need more thoughtless, vapid and vacuous politicians like her on the national stage.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
LOL — LOL — LOL
Please link to your comments re: Bush43 lies.
The issue is:
If the story is true then she is not rational. If it’s not she’s a liar. And she refused to answer questions that would determine which was the case…contrary to her own demands of H. Clinton.
If only the Democrats had serious people to run. People Like Herman Cain & Sarah Palin.
Name a better VP than Biden that didn’t become President…which would skew the record.
He certainly blows Cheney’s doors off…
Dude…you link to any contemporaneous comments on Republican lies….you are the rock-star of the internet.
I’m rooting for you.
Oh, sure. No argument there. But she was playing to her fan club, which believes anything she says, no matter how irrational/ wrong/self-defeating/contradictory (pick whatever adjective suits) it is.
@mannning: What planet do you live on? Never lied?
I was checking McCarthys justification for impeachment.
One item is Benghazi. No really…he’s serious.
Another is blaming Benghazi on the video…which has been proven to be, in part, true.
So that’s the level of nonsense we’re dealing with.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
So, even if there were evidence that Obama had honestly committed high crimes worthy of impeachment and the political calculus showed that Democrats defending him would cost them approval and upcoming elections, Harry Reid would stick with ol’ Barack to the end because…?
Impeachment is only a bad move politically because there’s nothing worth impeaching Obama over. You can’t claim there’s impeachable offenses and impeachment is a bad idea.
Your facts are useless here – these people will not be persuaded
Note the lack of a list of offenses that can be discussed.
This would be a valid concern except that most of the people who think impeachment is a viable option have no understanding of how the Constitution actually works. In their fantasy world, Obama, Biden and Boehner would all be skipped over in favor of a good “real American” Conservative. Elections are only important if they produce the “right” result.
My ex still busts my balls because I can’t lie.
Not that I never have…I’m just not good enough to be a politician.
He’s a Democrat, and he got re-elected.
For many Conservatives, that’s more than enough reason to impeach.
When a Democrat wins the Presidency in 2016, if there’s a Republican House again during (her) term, I’m sure we’ll start hearing the calls for impeachment fairly quickly.
I don’t know which side you’re on, but you’re right.
You’re one of those unwilling to be convinced…physician heal thyself…be the change you want to see in the world… Etc.
Your comments here on impeaching the president to hold him to account for alleged lies would hold much more weight if I didn’t remember you from when Bush was president. Either you have come to this realization late, after Bush left office, or it is partisan.
Agreed that we need a real 4th estate that holds all politicians to task for lies, omissions, and other untruths. What we don’t need are more partisan witch hunts.
Yes…a hundred times yes.
The S. B. Anthony List SCOTUS case didn’t belong in court…the 4th Estate should have called it for the BS it was…had that happened it never would have come to the court approving lying as a 1st Amendment right.
The public should decide issues about lying or not lying with their votes. Most of these”lies” really aren’t lies, they are just spun that way by the opposition. Often a politician is just plain wrong, but not lying. Unless the lie involves an actual crime, it should not result in impeachment. No president would last the first year.
Why screw around with impeachment? Republicans should do what they’ve wanted to do since day 1: find a rope, put on the white hoods and teach that uppity negro a lesson.
Come on now, I know there is racial animus driving some of the opposition to Obama, but that is as ridiculous as the communist charges against liberals that you (rightly) excoriate.
Well…yes and no. The Constitution gives the House the power to impeach a president for any reason. While it says this should only be used for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” if the House were to pass an article of impeachment charging Obama with bad taste in neckties, there would be no legal recourse to stop the decision; the only consequence that members of Congress would face would be the next election. (Actually, one of the articles against Andrew Johnson, that he appeared drunk at the inauguration, was scarcely less ridiculous than that example.) Still, the fact that the Constitution defines (albeit imprecisely) what it considers proper grounds for impeachment does make it less likely for it to become a routine tool Congress uses against a president from the opposite party. That’s why it’s only happened twice in our entire history. Republicans could potentially change this situation if they follow through on their current threats, though at this point I’m strongly betting against it, and even if they do I suspect they’d discredit themselves with the electorate far more strongly than they did in 1998 (when most people agreed that the president at least did something wrong, which is fundamentally not the case for any of the current Obama “scandals”).
@gVOR08: this is not left vs right, GOP vs Dems, Socialism vs liberty. This is war against White people.
Why do hostile elite defend Israel as a Jewish ethnostate with Jewish only immigration, but ravage White majority Europe/North America into a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural Gulag with non-White colonization?
The world is 93% non-White, only 7% White. But 3rd world colonizers, Muslims, Hispanics, Punjabis, are aggressively advancing their agenda to annihilate gullible Whites, just as China annihilates Tibet.
How long will gullible Whites cuckold for murderous anti-White elite, who suppress our fertility, confiscate our guns, infiltrate/subvert our banks/FBI/CIA, indoctrinate White kids in academia/mass media, plunder White jobs/wages, & butcher White soldiers in bankrupting wars?
“Native” Americans invaded from East Asia. Yellow & Brown races committed 10-times more genocide, slavery, imperialism than Whites. Since Moses, Whites have been victims of Jewish/Crypto-Jewish, Muslim, N.African imperialism, slavery, genocide.
Gullible Whites should reject subversive ideologies- libertarianism, feminism, liberalism- & hostile slanders of racism. Peace to all humanity, but White people must organize to advance their interests, their fertility, their homelands. Spread this message. Reading list: goo.gl/iB777 , goo.gl/htyeq , amazon.com/dp/0759672229 , amazon.com/dp/1410792617
@Gullible White Cattle: Man, I feel sorry for you. I hope you get the help you need, and learn to live a happy, productive life.
Hell, go ahead and impeach the President. But if you’re going to do it, at least do it for the right reasons, e.g. for not submitting Cheney, Rumsfeld and others to the Hague for war crimes of torture, for using kill orders against Americans, and for continuing unconstitutional surveillance programs. Pity that the worst potential crimes and abdication of enforcement responsibilities are the ones the Republicans would be the least likely to mention.
If there’s racial animus, why is it so outrageous?
Look, I remember back when the real crazies started coming out of the woodwork with the Tea Party and many of the people here bought the line that they were worried about big government and high taxes. I said at the time that they were driven by cultural panic and (closely related) racism. Who was right?
@Gullible White Cattle: Your statement reflects your name.
I wonder if the racial animus directed at Obama would be less if here were a black equivalent of LBJ or Nixon.
A guy like Florack looks at Obama, a GQ cover come to life, cool and elegant, a self made multi-millionaire, impeccable education, beautiful family, and it just has to grate.
It matters not when I decided that liars were not good leaders (somewere around 1940) but I simply hold that any President that lies, and the lies are validated factually as lies, should not lead the nation. That would have held for any past President, Republican or Democratic, and holds now and in the future. I believe many people were in doubt that Bush lied at the time, and there was no validation of it as a true lie that I am aware of. Acting on intelligence but being wrong does not constitute lying, so many gave Bush the benefit of the doubt. Obviously, had I seen proof then or now, and not finding WMDs does not constitute proof of a lie, I would have been very anti-Bush. The dilemma we have is that you must vote for one or the other candidates for President (or any office in the nation) , and if both are proven liars, what do you do? Pick what seems to me to be the lessor evil, of course, all factors considered.
What Bush or any other President did in the past is…past. What I did or did not do in the past is…also past. The past is rather irrelevant to the existing problems today. You are another “they all do it” type so you give them a big pass. I don’t.
@mannning: If goldfish–famed for their short attention spans–achieved sentience and took up politics, this would be their governing philosophy.
@mannning: That is some very ignorant things said. Of course the past matters. If the War Powers Act wasn’t used in lieu of A Declaration of War then it wouldn’t have been used by every POTUS since instead of having to have Congress declare war. If the past didn’t matter many laws that are seemingly unconstitutional could be challenged in the SC instead of dismissed based on standing since the practice has been in place for long enough that it is unchallengeable. In short this isn’t to excuse Obama for lying, but to say the precedent has been set and going after him now for it is petty partisanship when no one seemed to care about far more blatant lies/ cover-ups a huge one being Iran Contra. If your side didn’t care Reagan was lying about breaking US law while genuinely doing things that are/were illegal, why should you care so much when Obama lies about things that aren’t a violation of US law?
That said I wish the left cared more about the extra judicial killing by drones of US citizens without trials or the NSA stuff. Both of which are deeply troubling in the grand scheme of things. Getting bent up over spin is not worth anyone’s time.
@mannning: Also you clearly did give them ALL a big pass since you didn’t start to complain about the lies until this particular POTUS. Or can we conclude since Obama lied in the past and the past is irrelevant it doesn’t matter? Because what you did in the past doesn’t matter and it doesn’t matter what Obama did in the past.
That sure was an easy logic puzzle to solve.
Thought this would be a good time for the wayback comment retrieval, pointing out how mannning does not have a problem with GOP politicians like Palin or McCain stretching the truth. And he’s not above soft-pedaling lies for the GOP either.
So it seems we’re back to objecting to “Presidenting while Democratic” again, especially when Bush is given a pass for Iraq.
Wait a second… no mas???… is this battered wife alegal battered wife or an illegal one?
But I do guess that it’s clear that she’s writing her own stuff…
@mannning: I’ll offer you the same challenge that I offered the guy late last week; can you flesh out how this “we could make it damned hard and costly to do so” part works? I’m not seeing it.
@Grewgills: With all due respect to you and your desire to separate the “good” republicans from the ‘bad” ones, I can’t find any respectable thinking opposition to Obama on the right any more. It IS all about race! I’m sorry, I really wish it wasn’t.
@mannning: “somewere around 1940)”
2014-1940= older than 74 years old. Allowing for incredible wisdom in a youth of 18 (I don’t, but we’ll say so for argument’s sake, makes you 92 years old now?
Am I really supposed to believe this or are you taking “poetic license?”
@mannning: “What Bush or any other President did in the past is…past. What I did or did not do in the past is…also past.”
Except that you are claiming this wisdom came to you about 70 or so years ago. Hmmmm…..
“Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.”
Clearly you want to persecute anyone from the other team.
Everyone here can see what a phony you are.
Except you, that is.
Palin, Limbaugh, Gingrich, and McDaniel are mentioned in the same day. Is this some form of irrelevant Republican Bingo that people are playing. If someone makes a long post about the Koch brothers, does that mean you get five in a row.
For all of the progressive meme that conservatives are not interested in policy or governance, one has too look long and hard to find any post on progressive sites that ever delve into policy or governance. I guess going on a two minute hate on an irrelevant Repubicans is just too enjoyable to pass up.
Clearly you are only interested in persecuting anyone from the other team.
Someone linked to your support of Romney…one of the most mendacious campaigns in recent history.
Everyone here can see what a phony you are…sitting up on your high horse.
Except you, that is.
Oops…somehow that got doubled up.
Manning, having tried everything else to ensure the GOP as a viable party dies with him, decides to go all in for one last gasp.
I think Death Panels for the elderly may have been the only good idea Palin ever came up with.
Well, obviously. If the past were relevant, you’d actually have to know what happened back then to have any idea how to focus your rage today.
And that requires effort.
@mannning: “The question here is whether Obama has committed impeachable offenses, not whether to dismiss Palin as a valid source of political or legal opinion. Is lying to the public an impeachable offense? If Obama can be shown to have lied to the public numerous times, should he be impeached by the House? ”
I must have missed the part where Bush and Cheney were impeached. Could you please link to it?
Must be time for some fundraisin’!
@superdestroyer: I learned more about the health insurance systems used in Europe and Asia from Ezra Klein’s blog than I did from the press. Ditto for why American health insurance is so expensive, courtesy of Uwe Reinhardt in the NYTimes Economix blog. Ditto again for economics in Paul Krugman’s blog. Try them. You’re missing a lot.
@Rob in CT: Hey it’s vacation time – those big buses don’t rent themselves! Sarahpac must be getting low on funds.
Maybe, but they were also chomping at the bit to impeach Clinton. I think this is independent of racism – which doesn’t mean there aren’t a lot of racists involved, just that they’d be going for impeachment no matter which Democrat got in.
@anjin-san: “A guy like Florack looks at Obama, a GQ cover come to life, cool and elegant, a self made multi-millionaire, impeccable education, beautiful family, and it just has to grate.”
But that’s how the first black president was going to have to be, just only Sidney Poitier could be the first black movie star. Only after someone that reassuring had shown the nation we could survive could a Samuel L. Jackson become a star…
Stop complaining and enjoy the ride, Mrs Palin! My net worth has TRIPLED during the Obama years. Stock market is roaring. Life is good.
i like to sneer at idiot teA badger racist rednecks who bought $55K vanity pickups (on credit) and are financing a depreciating asset instead of buying 20000 share of GE at $5 in 2008.
I drive a fuel efficient Civic ($25/month for gas), insure it for cheap ($22/month at Insurance Panda), and live in a nice part of town in a house PAID OFF IN FULL. I’d like to thank the Obama economy for my recent success, but still, gotta laugh at those fools….
“Durn thet african Oboingo, there aint no opportunities fer a white feller no how! Now let me go drive muh F-350 Super Duty down to the Circle K and put $175 worth of diesel on muh maxed out providian credit card.”
What I get a huge laugh out of is the fact that every step of the way from Dow 6,600 in March 2009 to Dow 17,000 in July 2014 the doom-and-gloom boys at ZeroHedge have been screeching at everyone that the markets are on the verge of collapse.
How the F can the chicken littles EVER invest if they’re emotionally incapable of seeing a buy opportunity?
Rule or Ruin.
Race is a factor, but it’s not a simple one. Basically, Right wingers see the Dems as the party of “take YOUR money and give it to [undeserving] THEM.” THEY, of course, are often (but not exclusively) black.
It’s a bit like Democrats in 1860 railing about the “Black Republican Party” – when of course every elected Republican was White. The skin color of the politician/elected official isn’t the point. They’d want to impeach Hillary too. The rhetoric would likely be slightly different, and there might be a little less enthusiasm at the margins (or in particular regions), but the overall situation would be quite similar.
I’d wager Ms. Palin’s net worth has grown rather nicely too. She’s set up a sweet, sweet grift.
[one funny thing is that Obama called the stock market bottom almost exactly. This isn’t rocket science – I did it too – but I’m always amused to recall the supposed soshulist telling people “hey you should probably buy stocks now” and be totally right about it).
Clearly you are also a liar and a liberal, which is the same thing.
You must have missed my post where I said their past is irrelevant to today’s problems. So you are yet another one that signs up to “they all do it” so chill out! I would like to know that my President speaks the truth when he describes major cost-impacting programs on me.
I was referring to the drumbeat for castigating Bush and his father, which is indeed irrelevant to proved lies today by Obama. Focus, if you can, on the damage done to millions of people displaced by ACA, while they thought they could believe Obama when he said repeatedly over 37 times for months on end that they could keep their insurance if they liked it, and they could keep their doctor too, both false and well-recorded. Purely a set of lies., even of omission! That set of lies had nothing to do with Bush et al. You too seem to have signed up for the “they all do it” club. Que domage!
@mannning: The problem is that you only care about it when a Democrat is President. That makes you a liar also.
Only there weren’t millions displaced by the ACA.
There is churn every year…this year was no different. It’s a constant in the Insurance industry.
It’s really no big deal…Unless you are looking for an excuse to impeach a Democrat.
OK, but Obama said that in the past, so it’s irrelevant. Got something that happened TODAY?
@mannning: yeah, this is actually a bigger lie than anything Obama has claimed.
I used to joke about wanting a reality-based opposition. It isn’t funny anymore…
@mannning: “Clearly you are also a liar and a liberal, which is the same thing.”
So first you claim the mantle of Last Honest Man as you declare that any politician who lies must be impeached, although you only name those of the party you don’t belong to.
Now you state that your definition of “liar” is actually someone who holds a different set of political beliefs than you do.
And so apparently you believe that anyone who doesn’t share your political philosophy should be forbidden to hold office, and impeached whenever elected.
I’m sure you’ll forgive anyone here who no longer chooses to listen to you.
It is ACA and the edit didn’t work
You are forgiven your garbled rant.
Nice pick, but simply nonsense. We can’t do much about the Bush era, but we can do something about Obama.
Impeach Manning. Not for his past lies mind you, only today’s.
Arguably less true than Obama’s original statement you’re objecting to. Not very convincing.
Actually, what he posted was a clear, logical deconstruction of your absurdity in this thread. wr sometimes does verge on ranting, but not there.
You really have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re the Mark, mannning. I hope you haven’t wasted your money on Ms. Palin or any of the other uncounted conservative grift shops (who tend to magically spend 90+% of their revenues on themselves, in “operating expenses”). They exist to soak up the money of scared, gullible old people.
Well pardon my poor English, but where I come from, a lie is a lie, and that was a whopper. You too join the Club.
What Obama or any other President did in the past is…past. What I did or did not do in the past is…also past. The past is rather irrelevant to the existing problems TODAY.
So who the hell elected you the arbiter of veracity?
Why should he? Do you ever offer any proof?
@Rob in CT:
First of all I claim nothing but a desire to be told the truth by my President. Statement one is not true..
Second, in several posts I said that my desire applies across the board to both parties. Statement two is not true.
Third, when the rhetoric becomes pro liars, and coming from many liberals that post here, there seems to be a self-evident truth to it. They join the Club of Pro Liars. Self-evident.
Fourth, if the shoe fits, wear it. I also want my local and state officials to adhere to the truth also, or they lose my vote regardless of party. Obviously.
Finally, it is our dilemma that there are often known liars on both sides of the aisle, so we are more or less disenfranchised or must choose the lessor of evils, which I also posted earlier.
So much for both of your so-called logical analyses. And, history is replete with the records of liars, but that does not mean it is acceptable, unless, of course, you belong to the Pro Liars Club.
Why, no one, friend. Each of us must determine for ourselves what we believe to be the truth, and it is an extremely difficult an undertaking these days, given the polarization of the media, and the spin coming from the parties, not to mention the outright lies that the average citizen cannot sort out very well. All one can do is to try.
Vincit omnia veritas
You are excusing Obama from his lies while he is still in office and responsible for his actions, current and past? So much for his oath of office and morality–and, seemingly, yours.
Manning, some of us have memories longer than a nanosecond, and can remember your posting history here. Your claim that you are equally concerned about dubious statements by members of both parties is obvious bullshit, and I’m not going to dignify it by even pretending that it might actually be true for the sake of argument.
“the fact that these conspiracy theories aren’t true isn’t nearly as important as the fact that it is widely believed among people on the right, and that it is motivating their actions.”
What’s that quote? A lie can spread around the world while the truth is still lacing up it’s shoes?
Perhaps we should take healthcare out of private companies’ hands and then they can’t turn around and make, what at the time the President believed to be a a truthful statement – that people can keep their insurance – into a lie because business practices dictated that the private insurance companies drop people like they do every year (hugely HUGELY common practice) for whatever reason.
@Rob in CT:
Up front, I totally bypassed Palin’s remarks, or didn’t you read it closely enough? Her remarks are irrelevant to my position, which, simply put, is to punish liars when proven. I suppose also that the punishment must fit the crime. Given the severity of lying by a President, then impeachment may be the remedy. I cannot root out every lie committed either during elections or during office, but must rely on the evidence presented by many sources, including my own observations. .I find it very difficult, however, to believe sources that condone lying in the first place. Hoist by their own petard, as it were.
And Just as a follow up, does that mean we impeach ALL Congressmen who lied this year too, including Republicans?
Like say any Republican Congressman who says Obama has doubled the National Debt (he hasn’t)… or that State and Federal employment keeps expanding under Obama (it hasn’t, it’s dropped significantly). Because that would leave us impeaching the whole Republican party.
Perhaps so, but any President has tremendous access to authorities on most subjects, healthcare legislation being one. So we can forgive ignorance in the first instance, but over the months of repetition, 36 more times, I believe, shouldn’t the lie be corrected, redacted, withdrawn or apologized for? What we did get much later after the elections was the added statement ” if your insurance qualifies under ACA.” That is a costly subterfuge and a lie by omission.
A lie discredits any member of the Congress or Administration, and any citizen that resorts to lies. Could that simple truth have something to do with the low esteem held by the people for Congress?
@Rob in CT:
“Dubious statements!” No, I am talking about lies, bold and validated. You obviously haven’t read all of my posts, or you would have known that my contempt for liars is universal. The very fact that posters here are challenging my position of not accepting lies from our elected officials is frightening! So many here appear to sign up for the Pro Liars Club that it in itself is an evil force. For shame!
@Just ‘nutha’ ig’rant cracker:
It doesn’t require a thoughtful reason or racism, simple partisanship and team sports is enough. Yes, some opposition is by racists, racists that would also have opposed Hillary or any other Democratic president. Yes, there are others in the GOP that accept the racists or turn a blind eye because they share opposition to Obama. That is a far cry from Republicans wanting to form a lynching party. If you can’t see that difference then nothing I or anyone can say will get through to you and you can go on living in your fantasy land that sits opposite the one you perceive Republicans living in.
You’re applying Occam’s Razor, but you’re making assumptions about where the salami is thinnest. You assume partisanship precedes underlying attitudes, such as attitudes on race. But this is obviously untrue. By the time we choose a team, we already have an array of opinions and attitudes and preferences. They inform the choice of party, not the other way around.
Liberals have a particular analytical weakness: they don’t like to see evil. They like to see a lack of education or some other repairable problem. I like this about liberals, it’s one of the reasons they are nice people. But they’re wrong in most cases. Evil cannot be educated out of existence, and not everyone who does evil things is simply ignorant. More often they’re just aszholes.
I refer you to the most complete examination of political theory in modern history: Team America.
Liberals are puszies. I am a dick. I like puszies, I prefer to live surrounded by puszies (See: Marin County, CA) but I know an aszhole when I see one.
WR nailed you and no amount of wriggling at this point will get your free. Everyone can see that you look over statements by Democrats with a magnifying glass and the worst possible interpretation of their statements (because liberals are known liars). Simultaneously you take a step back when Republicans speak and look for ways to rationalize why it might not be an intentional attempt to deceive. When you are called on it you retreat to mock impartiality and talk about focusing on the now. In the event that we have a Republican president in 2017 your tune will change on the importance of now as you excuse his statements that others consider lies, while focusing on the horrors of Obama. You simply have not one ounce of credibility on this topic with anyone who has seen your past posts.
@David M: @Scott O:
Many thanks for finding those posts! They are as true now as they were then, especially about Iraq. Reread them, if you will, and verify that you have misconstrued what I said by labeling them erroneously.
Sorry you feel that way, so I must be sure to add your name to the legion of Pro Liars. I will no longer respect your writings either, since you do sign up, not only for Pro Liars Club and the lies they ignore, but also Alinsky’s Rules as well. i.e. slam the messenger not the message. Somehow, I thought scientific people revered the truth above all. I must be wrong. Some don’t, as you so aptly illustrate! That does not speak well for your prospects as a scientist and finder of the truth.
Oh well, another day, another fact to learn.
Not pro liar, anti hypocrite. You have actively excused the untruths of one side as understandable and not provably lies, while applying an entirely different standard to the other side.
You haven’t shown anything that Obama said that was any more provably a lie than what you have defended as not provably lies by Republicans. Scientists care about consistency, you don’t get to change the parameters and claim you are testing the same thing.
I’ve never read Alinsky beyond what right wing hacks like to quote whenever they are called on a less than honest argument.
The basic problem is that its impossible to take seriously anyone who only complains about lying when its done by the other party. The reason for that should be obvious – given the regularity of lies by presidents of both stripes since at least Nixon (and probably going back all the way to 1776), its impossible not to notice that kind of cherry picking in action.
They all lie. If lying is objectionable to you, you would have complained against all of them. If only the current lies bother you then you have an axe to grind, and not taken seriously.
The difference between parties here isn’t in lying (again, they all do it), but in that the Democrats haven’t taken to using impeachment as a way of cherry picking between liars.
Every few weeks Manning comes along, says something asinine, attracts attention, has his points obliterated and the earth beneath them plowed with salt, and walks away having demonstrated his intellectual limitations. He learns nothing. Like talking to a stone wall.
@michael reynolds: Or a goldfish.
Our goldfish are fun to have around.
My assumption is that right now tribalism centered around a few nuclei, social (including race), economic benefit (perceived and real), and the role of government (again perceived and real), dominates our political culture. I find it overly simplistic to boil it all down to one of those, much less one part of one of those. There are too many racists and homophobes and there are too many people willing to make alliances of convenience with them, but that doesn’t mean that Republicans or any other group are monolithic in their views on race or any other topic. You are quite capable of seeing shades of gray in other conflicts. Your view of the Israeli Palestinian conflict is nuanced. Why can’t your view of American politics be as nuanced?
You are correct that I railed against the lies of the day over the past 12 Presidents. There was no internet for much of that time, and I didn’t have a computer until 1992 or 93, and no particular interest in OTB till about 2003 or later, as best I recall. So there is no way I could have railed on line at a current President for lying, until Bush Jr., which I did over a number of issues, but not on OTB to my knowledge. So if your criteria is that I had to post my objections to Bush lying on OTB, and to comment the past 10 too, I think you are way out of line, and so are all that accuse me of undue partisanship or cherry-picking. No, I am availing myself of the opportunity now to rail against the current President here on OTB for what I perceive to be lies. I am done with the past Presidents. Some here appear to think that OTB is the ONLY forum that counts; I beg to differ.
Then, too, while I want my president to be honest, I have stated several times that we are usually faced with a dilemma when two candidates are seemingly liars, and we must pick one or not vote.
Vincit Omnia Veritas.
Fair enough, I await with anticipation your criticisms of the next Republican president (who will inevitably lie and try to extend the power of their office, simply because all politicians have and will do this).
To the extent that they do lie I will say my piece against them, regardless of party. I should repeat myself on one point: for me, it is often very difficult to validate or find validation of lies. Do you believe the statements of your own party, or do you believe those of the opposition, or are there independent and unbiased sources for validation? That is the rub!
The one case that is quite clear to me, is the one you hear directly from a President, say over TV many times, and later realize from subsequent statements of fact that it was a lie, perhaps of omission, or perhaps a deliberate evasion. The other factor to consider is whether the lie, or a series of lies, is so hurtful to the public, to the nation, or to yourself that it or they simply should not stand without challenge.
Vincit Omnia Veritas
True enough, though I note that most partisans always seem to go the route of concluding the independent evidence supports their side. That’s probably just human nature at work, and to be expected – and I suspect that passionate people on both sides of a controversial issue truly believe that their conclusion is the only correct one. Not many people really seem to be able to see both sides of an issue that is important to them.