posted on February 02, 2014 10:09
Is this a “Groundhog Day” sequel? Republicans talking about impeachment? Is it 1998 again?
Dan Barkin had an intriguing article in the N&O about several Republican U.S. Senate candidates talking up impeaching President Obama. They fumed about Obama’s alleged high crimes and misdemeanors, not to mention being black, a Democrat and President anyway.
Democrats should hope that the Republicans beat this drum. And that Thom Tillis is forced to take a public stand. Tillis wasn’t at the Lake Norman Conservatives forum that Barkin went to; the Speaker routinely ducks Tea Party events.
The last time Republicans got riled up about impeachment was, of course, the last time a Democrat was President. That was Bill Clinton, and it all started with some unseemly and unpresidential behavior.
The Republicans got obsessed with Clinton’s sex life. Senators Jesse Helms and Lauch Faircloth got hot on the trail. Kenneth Starr launched an in-depth, full-blown (pardon the expressions) federal case.
Then-Speaker Newt Gingrich and Later-Briefly-Speaker Robert Livingstone demanded impeachment and denounced Clinton. Later, it turned that they were guilty of similarly sins at precisely the same time. No matter.
They saw impeachment as the road to control of Congress in 1998. Lauch Faircloth rode the same horse against John Edwards in North Carolina. Edwards ran as an exemplary family man (this was a long time ago, remember) who thought Washington had its priorities wrong.
The GOP strategy backfired. Voters cared more about their lives than Clinton’s sex life. Edwards beat Faircloth. Democrats gained congressional seats in Clinton’s last mid-term election. The impeachment drive fizzled, and both Gingrich and Livingstone left Congress in disgrace.
A rerun is just what Democrats need. And Tea Party Republicans are just crazy enough to make our wish come true.
Meanwhile: Where do you stand, Thom?
Sunday, February 02, 2014 11:15 AM
Oh for crying out loud, Gary. Race again? Really, Gary? There must have been a secret memo put out by the DNC to all of the liberal/progressive pundits and politicians and news anchors and so forth that told them that the key to beating the Republicans is to pound the "race card" against them day after day after day after day. Gery, where is it mentioned in that blog article you referenced that these rare calls for impeachment of Obama is because he's a black, democrat president?
I wonder why you posted that as some kind of reference anyway. It came from a blog entry. It would be like someone on some other conservative blog site using one of my presentations here as proof that something was true.
Do you and the race-baiters in your party and within your radical liberal fringe truly know how much WHITE republicans help blacks not only all over America but all over the world? If we were all truly such horrible racist, bigoted, evil white people you and your kind try to make us out to be and didn't provide so much for so many people of color, we'd see a VERY different America.
I hate that you liberal/progressives are stooping as low as you are on this issue of race. It is doing nothing but dividing our country and filling far too many people with hate and distrust.
Oh, and if you want to know how I feel about impeachment of Obama....I think it is ridiculous and it'll never happen because it would never be successful. Obama has done some horrible things (Benghazi being his worst, IMO) but not enough to be impeached. Even if he DID do something that could be impeachable, the media would NEVER let that happen.
Sunday, February 02, 2014 1:39 PM
Actually, Tillis ducks ALL candidate forums where the unwashed masses of average voters might dare to ask him a question, and where his answers could be compared with his opponents. Tillis prefers to go in front of special interest groups who might write him a check, which is exactly who he would represent if he ever got to the Senate, not those average North Carolina Republican voters that he so distains. But that's okay, because the average NC Republican voters are starting to feel exactly the same way about the arrogant Tillis.
You do not seem the grasp the huge difference between Clinton's lie and Obama's lie. Clinton's lie was about his own personal conduct which did not impact the average voter. Obama's ''lie of the year'' was about voters' health care which he has royally screwed up for many. Obama's lie directly impacts average voters' lives and their pocket books, and that is an entirely different story.
Obama's unconstitutional power grabs are probably grist for an impeachment mill, but too hard for average voters to understand. I doubt that any impeachment would go forward unless it appeared the votes were there to sustain it.
And shame on you, Gary, for trying to play the race card. That is what liberals do when they know their message has no real substance.
Sunday, February 02, 2014 4:36 PM
Here's an addendum to my previous post on this:
I see that http://www.bluenc.com posted a front page diary on this exact same subject today wondering if Thom Tillis will be willing to give his thumbs up or thumbs down on impeaching Obama while running for the GOP's nomination to take on Kay Hagan for NC U.S. Senate.
Once again, you and Protzman seem to be getting your collective radical socialist/liberal/progressive head going in the same direction once again on your two North Carolina blog sites.
What's next? Both of you all posting a front page diary simultaneously presenting "evidence" about how republicans in North Carolina are all a bunch of wealthy, white, evil, racist bastards?
Wouldn't surprise me one bit.
Don't you just HATE it that I keep up with these things.....Ha Ha. :-)
Sunday, February 02, 2014 5:23 PM
Bill's oval office sex offenses in no way compare to the real damage done to the country by an imperial President, who insist on taking the economy down a Keynsian path to destruction. I just hope I live long enough to see what Hillary comes up with to shift blame from her administration. Sooner or later someone in the media is going to leak the real unemployment numbers to the people. Not that it matters because once amnesty is in place there will be a voting majority will be tied to the Democrat Santa Clause party. I guess all those who questioned democracy many years ago were right when they said the majority can vote themselves money from the minority. However lets have fun and enjoy it while it last.
Monday, February 03, 2014 11:51 AM
Thanks for the link Gary....er....Anonymous User.
Monday, February 03, 2014 10:06 PM
I am envious of Anonymous User, who seems to be the only one who can put a link up on the main page, and who seems to be able to post instantaneously on the main page instead of waiting a day or two for the post to show up like the rest of us. I wish he/she would at least share the ability to post links.
However, his link to this liberal and partisan Democrat blog is amusing. The Democrats presume in it to tell Republicans what they ought to do! Do these Democrats want to be helpful to help Republicans win? Of course not! They want Republicans to lose. So why would Republicans ever take that tainted Democrat advise?
The main fallacy in that Democrat blog is that candidates need to be ''centrists'' to win in a general election, which is the biggest bunch of malarky I have ever heard. To win in a general election, a candidate actually needs to delineate differences with the opponent, something usually harder for a centrist to do.
Take the Kentucky Senate race. Centrist establishment Republican Mitch McConnell is tied with Democrat Allison Grimes in the latest poll, but conservative GOP candidate Matt Bevin leads Grimes by six points in the same Rasmussen poll. It is the conservative, not the centrist who runs best in the general election.
In North Carolina, both moderate liberal Republican Thom Tillis and conservative Republican Greg Brannon lead Kay Hagan in the PPP poll. The difference is that there is A LOT more dirt out there for Hagan to use against Tillis in a general election than there is against Brannon, and that makes Brannon more electable.
Wednesday, February 05, 2014 11:44 AM
Further responding to the post in that liberal / Democrat blog that Anonymous User linked to, this notion that Republicans have to run a ''centrist'' to win in November comes from three sources, 1) Democrats, 2) Democrat-oriented news media, and 3) establishment Republicans, and is self-serving to all three groups. The Democrats and their media friends want Democrats, not Republicans elected. Establishment Republicans want themselves nominated.
Lets look at the real world.
Republicans tried both tacks against Jimmy Carter. In 1976, we ran centrist Gerald Ford and Carter creamed him. In 1980, we tan staunch conservative Ronald Reagan, and Reagan beat Carter by a landslide. A conservative who can communicate a message and differentiate his positions from the Democrats is who can win.
Comparing both approaches side by side is often difficult, as their are major factors that make it hard to compare races - different years, different election boundaries, different states, the difference between races for executive versus legislative office, the difference between running as an incumbent versus a challenger or open seat, etc. However, in 2012 there was one place in the country where such a comparison could be made without those factors and that was North Dakota.
North Dakota has only one House seat, and candidates run at large in the whole state, so they run within the same boundaries at the US Senate candidate. Both offices are legislative in nature. In 2012, both were open seats, so those dynamics were the same. The kicker was that very different types of Republicans ran for those two open seats. The Senate candidate was a centrist, strongly backed by Karl Rove, who talked about being bi-partisan and reaching across the aisle. The House candidate was a staunch conservative backed by the anti-tax Club for Growth, who took strong conservative positions and differentiated himself from his Democrat opponent. When the smoke cleared in November, the conservative House candidate had won handily, while the centrist Senate candidate went down to defeat.
What happened in North Dakota is exactly why the Democrats and Democrat oriented media want Republicans to nominate centrists and why they want us to nominate more Gerald Fords and fewer Ronald Reagans. Establishment Republicans want us to do that simply because they want the nominations for themselves.