• RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
MurphTheSurf3 On June - 5 - 2014

Impeach Obama

IF THE GOP KEEPS THE HOUSE,

WINS THE SENATE:

A TRIAL BUT NO CONVICTION……

unless you consider the impact on the electorate in 2016

**************************************************************

Talk of impeachment MEANS NOTHING….unless the GOP gets control of the Senate. Without that….the House can vote articles of impeachment, but the Senate will just knock the heck out of them making the GOP look very foolish. BUT BEING ABLE TO CONDUCT A SENATE TRIAL….and it is a trial…..under rules set up by the GOP will allow them to dredge up every so-called scandal and every disagreement in excruciating detail. It will last a year or more….NOW OBAMA WILL NOT BE FOUND GUILTY because after the trial procedure this is what happens….

  • The Senate will meet in private session to debate a verdict.
  • The Senate, in open session, will vote on a verdict. A 2/3 vote of the Senate will result in a conviction.
  • The Senate will vote to remove the President from office.
  • The Senate may also vote (by a simple majority) to prohibit the President from holding any public office in the future.

SO LET’S LOOK AT THE NUMBERS….

2/3 of the Senate. That’s 67 members of the Senate finding him guilty. In even the worst forecasts for the Midterms as seen at http://mark28.blogspot.com/2014/01/updated-2014-senate-race-predictions.html  the largest number of gains for the GOP is 6 seats.

Currently there are 53 Democrats, and 2 Independents in the Democratic Causus and 45 GOP.

In the worst case scenario, we get 47 Democrats and 2 Independents and 51 GOP.Not even close to 67.

SO, WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT HERE IS A SHOW TRIAL THAT WILL THE CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT UP IN KNOTS…all to make the 2016 race a verdict on Obama as a failed president leading a failed party.

Written by MurphTheSurf3

Proud to be an Independent Progressive. I am a progressive- a one time Eisenhower Republican who is now a Democrat. I live in a very RED STATE and am a community activist with a very BLUE AGENDA. Historian, and "Gentleman Farmer."

76 Responses so far.

Click here to leave a comment
  1. cyndibru says:

    KT, you asked me:
    “cyndibru, are you saying that infighting among the GOP is preventing them from even coming up with a better PLAN/IDEA to achieve affordable healthcare insurance for more Americans?

    I also have to disagree that Americans don’t like the ACA, or can’t afford it. I know several people who have benefited greatly because they now can have a doctor to see and care for them, when before, they didn’t.”

    No, they have a plan. It’s available and ready to go, but they haven’t moved on it at all in the House yet, which was Murph’s point. He says that’s because they can’t pass it in the house due to the infighting between GOP factions there. I say that with the current political realities and timing, there’s no “upside” for the GOP to do so at this time. It could be passed, but it would be a big battle just like the ACA was for the different Dem factions. Since we know it won’t go anywhere while the Dems are in charge of the Senate, the GOP has no reason to have that fight NOW, is my point. Murph disagrees and thinks they have an obligation to put it out there now.

    That’s the context of the discussion. Of course lots of Americans like the ACA, especially the ones getting free and/or low cost health care from it. Lots of other Americans don’t like it as it stands, for various reasons. The GOP thinks there’s enough of those Americans who will be voting in the contested races that could flip the Senate this fall to keep the current focus on winning the Senate majority, not the specifics of any replacement plan. They’re not looking to have any infighting over anything right now if they can avoid it. It doesn’t mean that they COULDN’T pass something they felt was necessary at this time, and they’d use arm-twisting to do it if necessary. But they don’t find it necessary at this time, even if Murph thinks it is. His argument is that choosing not to advance the legislation is proof that it can’t be advanced. I disagree with that.

  2. phoenixdoglover says:

    Gallup poll had Congressional approval bottoming out a few months ago at 9%. Then it “rebounded” and is around 12% now.

    Any way you look at it though, there is still ample opportunity for Congress to do worse. The impeachment idea might do the trick.

    Seriously though, even if you accept the argument that the GOP has been reduced to existing for the sole reason of existing, at some point might not the electorate turn off the TV, step outside, and decide to change this?

    There are some hopeful signs. Take the average age of a Fox viewer, for example. Only a string of medical discoveries is going to save that demographic.

    But I agree with the basic analysis. It could be a show trial only. The votes wont be there. And the window will be only about 10 months long (Jan-Oct 2015), before 2016 campaigning looms larger, and some Senators lose their nerve.

  3. SearingTruth says:

    I writhed in anguish for years. Always knowing pain was coming, but never knowing what I should attempt to say next, or how I should appear so that my American torturers would believe me.

    The problem was that I was innocent.
    ST

    “Democracies are lost because the people that live within them, given enough time, forget how precious they are, and forsake the foundations upon which they stand.”
    SearingTruth

    A Future of the Brave

  4. BirdIntheHand says:

    The Republicans have been waiting for 6 years to even get as far as staging a show trial against Obama that has no chance of removing him from office. They did it to Clinton, and they’d use the slightest excuse to do it to Obama. Unfortunately with the whole release of prisoners from Gitmo and apparently violating the 30-day notification to Congress, even if for the right reasons, he’s given them the excuse they’ve been seeking. The fact that the Democrats allowed Bush’s 8 years to pass without anyone even suggesting impeachment (except, I think, for Dennis Kucinich(sp)) after all that Bush did, including war crimes, is despicable, but it happened -- they should have done it to him when they had the chance.

    • JumpingJackFlash says:

      The fact that he released 5 terrorists back to fight the US is high Treason.

      • pinkpantheroz says:

        Sorry, Jack, but you’re starting to look like a typical GOPTP troll with provocative one liners. Do look at your party’s history, you know, Saint Ronald of Reagan, who not only traded missiles for hostages in Iran, but as shown today here, praised the Taliban as the founding fathers of Afghanistan! So I’d hold off the stone throwing in the glasshouse if I were you, which I’m thankfully not.

      • escribacat says:

        Would you also consider trading arms for hostages in Iran to be high treason?

      • jjgravitas says:

        JumpingJack, you argument ignores the facts. The five terrorists will continue to be held in Qatar for the next year. By the time they set foot in Afganistan, our forces will have pulled out. The Iraq War is over, the Afghan War is about to. Not treason, high or otherwise.
        What else you got?

    • Nirek says:

      Birdinthehand, I have to agree with you. “w” was the most deserving of impeachment ever. And the Democrats let that chance slip by them.

  5. funksands says:

    Murph, the GOP’s goal is not to “run” the government or “govern” the country using the government apparatus.

    It is to feed on the commons.

    The easiest way to weaken he host so it is more easily fed on is to break the public trust in its government

    So it is easier to feed on the commons.

    Because why would anyone care about something broken?

    • jjgravitas says:

      I still care about the social contract between Americans that the GOP and its oligarch friends are in the process of ripping to shreds. I’d like to see that contract put back together and strengthened so that the GOP can never touch it again.

    • slightlycrazy says:

      all governments are protection rackets at heart

  6. SearingTruth says:

    Fellow citizens, a moment of silence for the Fourth Amendment of The Constitution of the United States of America.

    It went far before it’s time, and unconstitutionally.

    Here were its last words:

    “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
    The Constitution of the United States of America, Fourth Amendment

    A Future of the Brave

    • MurphTheSurf3 says:

      How does this speak to the impeachment story? Interested in your perspective on that….

      • SearingTruth says:

        Gentle friend MurphTheSurf3, abandoning our Constitution is a fundamental reason for impeachment.

        And as a liberal most hopeful for Obama I can only say that the Bush administration committed the initial treason, and the Obama administration tragically continued it.
        ST

        “So much we have lost. So much we have surrendered.

        I wonder if we have lost and surrendered everything.”
        SearingTruth

        A Future of the Brave

        • Nirek says:

          Searing Truth, President Obama has ended the war in Iraq and the military actions in Afghanistan are ending by the end of this year. He has had an uphill battle to do everything he has done. Were it not for the obstructionism of the GOtP he would have accomplished far more.

          We might be able to agree that reversing the damage to our country will take time and more than one President.

        • choicelady says:

          Searing Truth -- that’s ridiculous. In 2007 after MANY of us who had been hacked, investigated, followed by Bush’s regime, and yes, I was one of them, pushed back and secured due process via the 4th Amendment.

          Americans today are NOT being intruded upon, listened to, monitored, eavesdropped -- it is simply not happening, and even Glenn Greenwald ADMITS it though you have to read down to the 54th paragraph of every screed to find that out.

          We have a president that is consistent with the Constitution. We did NOT have that until 2009. I know what it is like -- spent three years dodging the FBI over my refusal to tell a stranger who revealed that they knew the entire content of a private email four hours earlier who my board of directors were and what their home addresses and contact info was.

          I KNOW persecution. This administration is not doing it at all. Give it up. It’s as thin a concern as the FEMA camps are to the Right.

          I. Know. The. Difference.

          • Mojave Green says:

            Oh, I must have missed the ‘hit list’ amendment in the Constitution. And have you been on an interplanetary vacation? The NSA has not only continued their crimes, they have continued and expanded them. And then there’s the illegal use of the I.R.S. as a weapon against his long ‘enemies’ list. I don’t live in the U.S. but the Police State you’ve become gets more coverage than your corporate ‘press'(sic) provides. Do you have any idea what the U.S.D.A. or the Post Office need submachine guns for? Cause the Droniac is arming them (and most all govt. ‘agencies’) with them. And now more than two BILLION hollow point bullets to shoot out of them. Since hollow points are illegal in war and the ‘Fatherland Security’ dept. said they were for ‘domestic use’. And have you heard about that two billion dollar ‘data center’ in Utah? “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” Eh?

            • escribacat says:

              YOur post reads like a list of new world order conspiracy theories. If you think the USA is a “police state” then you need to read some history and hopefully learn what a real police state is. I live here and I’ve never seen the post man carry a weapon, except for pepper spray to keep the dogs off.

          • SearingTruth says:

            Thank you for your humanity and compassion gentle friend choicelady.

            I am sorry we differ on details but am thankful that we agree on principle.
            ST

            “We can take life.

            But we cannot bring it back.”
            SearingTruth

            A Future of the Brave

  7. SearingTruth says:

    “Our last great hope is doing the same as our last great tyrant.”
    SearingTruth

    A Future of the Brave

    • MurphTheSurf3 says:

      Not my hope, but certainly it is at the top of the list of some who believe that only an elite can rule.

      • SearingTruth says:

        Indeed. On all sides gentle friend MurphTheSurf3.
        ST

        “I remember when we all fought against the same injustice, and thought we had won.”
        SearingTruth

        A Future of the Brave

  8. Beatlex says:

    Yes Murph,and the R’s will have no qualms doing it.How disgraceful.And it would come back to haunt them IMO.Good post

    • MurphTheSurf3 says:

      It will come back to haunt them in the long run if they mishandle it but it will raise them a lot of money, rouse their base to get out the vote, and cast doubt on the legacy of Barack Obama. Their goals are not about the Presidency but about the control of Congress and their gerrymandering gives them a huge advantage in the House (until at least 2020) and the constitution gives them many Senate seats representing far few people than many Dem Senators.

  9. SearingTruth says:

    “The Republican and Democratic parties have delivered us into the hands of darkness.”
    SearingTruth

    A Future of the Brave

    • MurphTheSurf3 says:

      I place far more responsibility on the GOP in this- start with the Supreme Court and work backwards.

      • SearingTruth says:

        So do I gentle friend MurphTheSurf3, but sadly without Democrats it couldn’t have happened.

        I voted for Obama.

        I cried for hours when he was elected.

        But then, he not only refused to investigate Bush/Cheney and all their accomplices for war crimes and treason, he actually embraced, defended, and expanded their unconstitutional programs.

        I was stunned.
        ST

        “Don’t judge what people say, judge what they do.”
        SearingTruth

        A Future of the Brave

        • choicelady says:

          It is not up to the president to investigate. That is not a legal function of the presidency. No country other than Guatemala has ever prosecuted its own criminals -- and their decisive finding against Rios Montt was overturned by their court system.

          Had President Obama given you a nuggie in so doing, we would have had civil war. It cannot arise as anything but vengeance when a new president would prosecute the old, no matter how disreputable the criminal.

          This rightly belongs in the ICC and that is where the warrants against Bush and Cheney now reside.

          Sorry you didn’t get your fist pump moment, but there are far more important things for a PRESIDENT to do that make you feel good. There is process -- and if you failed to vote in 2010, you blew it because there were movements afoot to bring Bush and Cheney to justice in international law. Those are gone, probably forever. You will just have to content yourself with the fact they’re under house arrest unable to leave America save in secret. I work with the Center on Constitutional Rights and know whereof I speak. Sorry you’re disappointed, but you’re sort of not the issue. Justice and due process are.

          • Mojave Green says:

            I guess your corporate ‘news’ never mentioned when the Droniac approached the Swiss government and pleaded with them not to arrest Bush, who wanted to go there and got his pal to intercede. But the Swiss wisely informed him that their Justice Department was independent, and no, they wouldn’t ‘intercede’ to help him protect his criminal partners. There’s arrest warrants out for Rumsfeld and other Bush/Cheney regime criminals. And one country’s already charging the current war criminal with genocide. I think Hillary’s on that one too.

        • MurphTheSurf3 says:

          In those early days Obama and his coalition thought that this was the road to GOP cooperation AND the way around the difficult issue of Democratic complicity in the whole mess.

          It turned out to be a bad strategy.

          • choicelady says:

            Murph -- I don’t think it was intrinsically bad strategy so much as the president seriously though dealing equitably with the GOP would bear fruit. Had the Koch brothers not ginned up a massive protest against ACA that morphed into the Tea Party, it might have done.

            The demands by the outraged Left for not getting the revisions of 40 years of conservatism overnight led to the ‘send the Dems a message and don’t vote’ strategy in 2010. Data show that Dems did NOT vote by a larger margin than the GOP. And here we are, stuck with the most ignorant and pernicious set of Congress people in our history. Even the Know Nothings of the 1850s were not this bad.

            I don’t fault the attempt at bipartisanship. I fault the drive for public vengeance by so-called progressives leading to opting out of the electoral system for where we are.

            Democracy in the US is based on a two party system, and not voting is not an option. Every time someone stands down and fails to vote, it IS a strength for the opposition. That cannot happen any longer -- we need a powerful and supportive Congress if we are ever to get things done well. Impeachment is disastrous to progress no matter how it works out.

            • MurphTheSurf3 says:

              There is not a thing here that I disagree with…in fact I endorse every single thing you have to say….and now we are stuck trudging up hill until 2020 AND unless we have a wave election in 2014, 2016, 2018 and 2020 that climb will remain very difficult.

              Having said that, I do fault the Obama administration with continuing to cooperate with the GOP after year one. Their intention was clear and the intelligence about the billionaire bullies was right there.

              Obama’s problem was the Blue Dogs in the Senate. Had they cooperated ACA would not have been the horror it was; and many of the 135 bills passed by Pelosi’s House would have passed the senate including a reworked voting rights act.

              To do that Obama and the Dems would have had to channel the spirit of LBJ and put extraordinary pressure, at first private and then public, on the Blue Dogs.

              I think the result would have been an inspired left and far better turnout on our side the aisle. It would have been war with the right but that was already started anyway.

    • Nirek says:

      ST, you speak the truth.
      It is unfortunate that money has corrupted the politic of America.

      • SearingTruth says:

        And that is the key gentle friend Nirek. Thank you.
        ST

        “Public finance of public elections is the only just practice, and solution.

        None above, or below, another.”
        SearingTruth

        A Future of the Brave

  10. slightlycrazy says:

    plus, there may be intelligent republicans after all. some republicans are even now challenging the hysteria over bergdahl, which has to be the absolute nadir of rightie weirdness.

  11. Wemble says:

    In order to prevent any impeachment trial the solutions is simple: Democrats and those who usually support Democratic candidates need to show up at the polls and vote. I don’t know why this is such a complicated concept to grasp, but evidently it is. Republicans get it, but far, far too many Democratic voters need to be excited or arm twisted into casting their ballots.

    This type of voter apathy by Democrats in 2010 is what allowed my state of Wisconsin to elect a college drop out as our governor and Russ Feingold lost reelection as senator. Republicans got out and voted, Democrats did not.

    Senators are voted into office by the entire electorate of a state, it is not gerrymandered. So every vote from every district is important, no matter how red it might be. Democrats simply need to vote to succeed.

    Governments are formed, laws are passed, policies are made as a result of those who choose to take part in the electoral process, not by those who choose to not vote, but then complain about the result of their inaction. For Republicans to succeed with impeachment in the Senate, all they need is for Democrats not to vote.

    • MurphTheSurf3 says:

      Wemble-

      The five great allies the GOP have are:

      1) The low information base common to most voters.
      2) Plenty of money to fill the ether with propaganda.
      3) A zealous and energized base.
      4) The apathy of some Democratic voters.
      5) The ideology of other Democratic voters that complains the Party is not Liberal enough.

      Your illustration of what happened in Wi in 2010 is spot on. Equally as troublesome to me is that in the recall process Dems LET Walker stay in office. And that is what they did. Stupidty from many; idealism from others.

      Disaster.

    • Nirek says:

      Wemble, you hit the nail squarely on the head. We need to find a way to light a fire under the apathetic Democrats.
      Welcome to the Planet, btw.

  12. Dimbulb2 says:

    The only hope for the survival of the republican party is an undereducated electorate combined with a right wing activist SCOTUS intent on enabling the purchase of our elections by the 1%.
    Which is exactly what we have.

    I also “want my country back”

    • MurphTheSurf3 says:

      Hope and No Change-

      The GOP motto.

      Yes, I want my country, the country that elected Obama and a Dem House and Senate in 2008 back….but the thing is- it was Democrats who let the other side grab it away from us. AND they want more.

  13. Nirek says:

    Murph, do you really think they will start an impeachment? They don’t have anything but false accusations and out and out lies.

    • MurphTheSurf3 says:

      Doesn’t matter.

      They will be able to eat up the clock in both the House and Senate.

      They will make lots of money.

      They will rile up their base.

      They will build a case for de-legitimatizing Obama’s presidency on the floor of the House and Senate.

      They will increase the chances of holding onto the House and Senate in 2016 IF they control the trial and they will.

      • cyndibru says:

        Hiya Murph! Made it here! As a conservative myself, I would find an impeachment a waste of time. If the GOP takes the Senate, which I hope they do, I would hope they attempt to pass legislation that addresses the issues this country is facing. As we know, there is much agreement about the problems we face but disagreement about the solutions that will work. Currently, the logjam has been Congress. I don’t hold out much hope that will change — the logjam will simply move to the President’s desk and his veto pen. But at least our side’s ideas will get fully heard and presented, and we’ll see what happens in the court of public opinion.

        • MurphTheSurf3 says:

          AH HAH….found your reply. Yes the threads end after they step in three times. What you do is go back to the top of the thread and do what I am doing here….drop in early and an e mail alerts you that you have a reply. Here it is. My reply are ALL CAPS….

          =====================here’s your comoment======

          Weird, I can’t find a “reply” button on your latest post, so I had to use the “reply” button on mine above it. There’s probably a better way to be navigating around here that I haven’t figured out yet.

          Nowhere in my post did I say that GOP actions or inactions are the responsibility of the Dems. I do believe that both parties certainly take political realities into account whenever they do or don’t do something legislatively. A political reality, that you acknowledged in your response, is that the Dems won’t allow ANYTHING that repeals or replaces or amends any part of the ACA. Why did the GOP then vote ad nauseum for repeal? You contend it’s because that’s the only thing the GOP can agree on. I say it’s much simpler than that – it’s to make a political point that has an “upside” for the GOP with their voters. YOU ARE STILL AVOIDING MY QUESTION. THEY CAN MAKE THEIR POINT THAT THE ACA HAS TO GO. BUT WHY DID THEY NOT MAKE THE PONT THAT THEY HAD SOMETHING BETTER. BRING FORTH THE RSC REPORT, PUT IT ON THE FLOOR, SHOW IT OFF, AMEND IT, PASS IT AND THEN SEND IT TO THE SENATE….FORCE REID TO SAY NO….INDEED THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THE DEMS IN THE SENATE COULD IGNORE THE REPEALS- ALL THEY HAD TO DO IS SAY: SO WHAT IS THE GOP PROPOSING AS AN ALTERNATIVE……CRICKETS IN THE WAY OF LEGISLATION. SOME NICE GENERALIZED STATEMENTS BUT NO LEGISLATION. AND THE GOD DID IN FACT SAY, AGAIN AND AGAIN- WHY BOTHER CREATING AN ALTERNATIVE WHEN THE DEMS IN THE SENATE WILL NOT CONSIDER IT. IF THAT IS SO THEN WHY PUSH THE REPEAL FORWARD 50 PLUS TIMES?

          Would there be infighting and political wrangling if the GOP proposed bill regarding health care actually had hearings? Of course, no doubt. And if it had a prayer of passing through the Senate and the President’s veto pen, that would be worth it. But it doesn’t, so there’s no political upside to having the fight and doing the wrangling. REFER TO MY PREVIOUS PARAGRAPH. IN 2011 RYAN PUT UP A BUDGET THAT ACTUALLY INCLUDED AN ALTERNATIVE AND THE ALTERNATIVE HAD TO BE CUT OUT BY THE GOP. WHY? THE COULD NOT GET ENOUGH SUPPORT FOR IT. THE BUDGET PASSED WITHOUT THE NEW HEALTH CARE STRUCTURE.

          As you stated, the Hastert rule is an “informal governing principle”. It’s not hard and fast, and exceptions are made. The establishment GOP decides when to bring things up for a vote or not, and when it’s something they feel needs to be passed and/or considered, they know whether or not they have the votes within the entire HOUSE to pass it. If they NEED the votes, they’ll arm twist within their own party. If they don’t, because enough Democrats will vote in favor, they’ll allow those GOP to vote how they wish for political cover with their voters. Not much difference than in the Senate, where votes by Landrieu and others against the Dem majority are overlooked or excused by “look where they come from”. But when push comes to shove, they make the deals they need to pass SOMETHING. That’s why you have the ACA, because not enough DEMOCRATS wanted single payer or anything different. They had enough votes, numbers wise, to pass anything they wished, disregarding the GOP entirely. But the political reality was that they had to appease their own party members because there wasn’t party unity on what should be done. So they had to fight it out amongst their own party, and the fight is still resonating today. THIS IS GENERALLY ACCURATE. HERE IS MY POINT- THE GOP IS UNABLE TO PASS ANYTHING OF SUBSTANCE ON ITS OWN. NOTHING. GOT AN EXAMPLE?

          But you think the GOP, without having the ability to actually set and pass the agenda, should bloody themselves up and do the same. Sorry, they’re not that gullible. When push comes to shove and it COUNTS, they’re better at standing in lockstep than the Dems are – just look at what they’ve been able to block in the Senate by doing so. That, of course, you call obstruction. THE SENATE REGULARLY PASSES BILLS THAT THEY KNOW WILL NOT PASS IN THE HOUSE. YOUR POSITION IS NOT LOGICAL. IF IT WERE THE WAY THINGS ALWAYS RAN THERE WOULD BE NO BILLS FROM EITHER HOUSE UNLESS BOTH WERE CONTROLLED BY ONE PARTY AND THAT PARTY HAD CONTROL OF ITS OWN CAUCUS. ON AVERAGE ONLY HALF OF THE BILLS PASSED BY EITHER CHAMBER BECOME LAW.

          • cyndibru says:

            I’m sorry that you think my reply isn’t addressing your questions or that when it does, it isn’t “logical”. To me, it is.

            I agree with you that the GOP has a problem with infighting between the “traditional” GOP and the hard liners/tea party reactionary factions. I just don’t agree that means they CAN’T pass an ACA alternative plan in the House. We’ve already agreed that there is no way the Dems are going to allow any legislative changes to their “signature” achievement until Obama is out of office. You think the GOP in the House should go ahead and have the bloody infighting NOW to pass the alternative legislation that we know will go nowhere and “make” Harry Reid say no by filing it in his desk drawer, and that this would best benefit the GOP by showing America their alternative plan.

            I think the GOP believes enough Americans dislike the current plan regardless of the specifics of what a replacement plan might look like, plus other election factors, that they have a real shot at winning a majority in the Senate, where at that point any of their agenda, including their alternative plan, will get then get priority consideration.

            I think the GOP sees that currently, the infighting to pass that plan would get much more press than Harry’s slipping it into his desk drawer, and isn’t worth spending the political capital to do so until there’s a chance it would be taken seriously by the other legislative branch. They don’t have the power to push their agenda now, better to not upset any political momentum prior to the elections by having any pointless internal battles. Save your arm-twisting until it might actually mean something.

            • MurphTheSurf3 says:

              Sorry, I do not buy this.

              If they have a plan they have to put it on the table for all of us to look at. They have not. Why? They cannot. They cannot get an agreement. If they can’t now, why should I believe that they will later.

              Put up or shut up, GOP. You say you want ACA repealed. Ok. You put up. You voted to repeal it despite the fact that the repeal bill would not be taken up in the Senate.

              Suggesting that they cannot do the same with their replacement (remember their motto: Repeal and Replace), plan for fear of infighting is excuse making.

              Their fear is that fighting will get them no where. Again I cite the Ryan plan that made it into the 2009 budget and then had to be pulled out by the GOP because they could not get a majority of their caucus to support it.

              That is how you demonstrate that you have the capacity govern. Given how unproductive this House has been it is my belief that they are so deeply divided that the only governance that can come out of the House is bipartisan. GOP plus Dems.

            • cyndibru, are you saying that infighting among the GOP is preventing them from even coming up with a better PLAN/IDEA to achieve affordable healthcare insurance for more Americans?

              I also have to disagree that Americans don’t like the ACA, or can’t afford it. I know several people who have benefited greatly because they now can have a doctor to see and care for them, when before, they didn’t.

        • MurphTheSurf3 says:

          Hello and major, jumbo sized, mega-greetings. You are a brave soul. I post at Fox, and Red State. I use a different screen name there. I want my progressive philosophy to have some voice. I must tell you that posts at both sites are often censored. Yep. They post and are taken down. I was banned from the Conservative Thinker. I posted there for nearly a year but eventually I was dismissed for being too negative. Well, I was very negative. That is what the word “opposed” implies does it not?

          Here at the Planet that will not happen in matters of content. Even the most liberal of us MUST abide by the rules of respectful public discourse. IF, you find yourself subject to anything else, you need to report that at the Help Desk immediately. Ad Lib, our primary admin, is about as even handed as you can get.

          Having said that….you also need to know that some folks are REALLY going to push back HARD while others will push back REALLY, REALLY HARD.

          So be prepared.

          When I post a Conservative site, I have three rules:

          1) Provide a clear thesis; a easily understood controlling idea.
          2) Build a case making fact based statements in support of my thesis.
          3) Provide a real world narrative with sources when necessary.

          SO…..let me begin.

          Why has the GOP not passed one its counter-ACA plans in the House? They have passed dozens of other bills, most pertinently its ACA repeals, which have had no chance of seeing light of day in the Senate.

          The pattern has been the same. A group of House members fashion their own reform measure. The measure gets trotted out with lot of hoopla by the member. The Speaker and Majority Leader acknowledge it. It goes to Committee and….nothing.

          The most recent example was last Fall when the Republican Study Committee, a very large group representing both wings of the GOP, the institutionalists and the tea party, proposed its “The American Health Care Reform Act”

          http://rsc.scalise.house.gov/solutions/rsc-betterway.htm

          It is in four committees now and there have been NO hearings, no action.

          WHY?

          The way I see it is this. They know that their own bill would not pass in their own GOP controlled House. They have no alternative to offer that they can get their own caucus to support. All they can agree to is to repeal what they do not like.

          The RSC bill has a number of aspect worth considering. I have written on this. A number of Dems in the House have referred to elements in the bill they like. But……it goes no where.

          On the page I cited earlier there is this interesting tidbit. In a large black box at the top of the page, the RSC notes that Obama has said he would work with anyone on good ideas in a December statement. Now, the RSC bill was submitted to the House in September. The RSC places the responsibility for the bill not making progress on HIS not having sat down and spoken with them.

          What’s missing. They claim that a majority of the their house caucus supports the bill. Ok. Prove it. Bring it to the floor. At that point, a bill, approved by the majority of the House (which I think could well include a number of Dems), would provide a sound counter-proposal to weaknesses in the ACA and the basis for Obama working with their leadership and with the Senate leadership.

          Why aren’t they doing that?

          1) When push comes to shove, they will not enough votes from their own caucus to pass the bill which means they would have to look to the Dems AND THAT IS FORBIDDEN by the most conservative, the tea party.

          2) It contains a number of items that most of their members really do not want to passed. For example: The bill has provision that “Spurs competition to lower health care costs by allowing Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines and enabling small businesses to pool together and get the same buying power as large corporations.” Bottom line: the big insurance companies and their lobbies do not want this as it will cut into their bottom line. They are among the big money donors and their clout is enormous.

          3) If the bill moves forward and becomes the basis for a Senate reconciliation bill then the GOP will be seen as working with the Dems, being bi-partisan. For many of their incumbents that is a death curse.

          4) By creating another false narrative- Obama and the Dems are stopping us- they get to raise more money off of it and continue to lift up their targets of choice: Obama, Pelosi, Reid.

          Ok, your turn.

          • cyndibru says:

            Well, at least you acknowledge that the GOP actually HAS an alternative plan, which is more than many liberals will acknowledge. I think we’ve all heard that particular talking point many times, that the GOP simply wants to repeal the ACA and go back to the way things were, with “people dying in the streets”. Lies and empty political rhetoric aren’t exclusive to the GOP.

            IMO, the GOP doesn’t have a hope of changing or replacing the ACA until Obama is out of office. Could Boehner get it past the Tea Partiers by working with the Dems in the House? Probably….only to have it die in the Senate. And in doing so, highlight the fight within his own party only to have it be for naught. There’s no “upside” to that. Your assertion that if the House passed it, the Senate Dems and Harry Reid might actually consider it and it could become the basis for a reconciliation bill I see as very disingenuous. That’s not going to happen in the current political climate. No “tweaks” are going to made to the ACA other than by executive order while the Dems are in charge. Its touted as “Obama’s signature achievement” and by extention, the Dems’ as well. They SAY they’re willing to consider changes to “improve” it, but first of all, that’s not what this bill does and secondly, I don’t believe they really are or would, especially not before they see what happens in the midterms and if they were really honest about it, probably not before 2016.

            I don’t think your other questions really come into play in the current thinking or maneuvering, although
            if the GOP takes the Senate, they could become relevant. I could then see Congress as a whole working on passing an alternative plan, even if they know it won’t make it past Obama’s veto pen. Because then it would serve as a real alternative to consider as we run up to 2016.

            • cyndibru says:

              Weird, I can’t find a “reply” button on your latest post, so I had to use the “reply” button on mine above it. There’s probably a better way to be navigating around here that I haven’t figured out yet.

              Nowhere in my post did I say that GOP actions or inactions are the responsibility of the Dems. I do believe that both parties certainly take political realities into account whenever they do or don’t do something legislatively. A political reality, that you acknowledged in your response, is that the Dems won’t allow ANYTHING that repeals or replaces or amends any part of the ACA. Why did the GOP then vote ad nauseum for repeal? You contend it’s because that’s the only thing the GOP can agree on. I say it’s much simpler than that – it’s to make a political point that has an “upside” for the GOP with their voters.

              Would there be infighting and political wrangling if the GOP proposed bill regarding health care actually had hearings? Of course, no doubt. And if it had a prayer of passing through the Senate and the President’s veto pen, that would be worth it. But it doesn’t, so there’s no political upside to having the fight and doing the wrangling.
              As you stated, the Hastert rule is an “informal governing principle”. It’s not hard and fast, and exceptions are made. The establishment GOP decides when to bring things up for a vote or not, and when it’s something they feel needs to be passed and/or considered, they know whether or not they have the votes within the entire HOUSE to pass it. If they NEED the votes, they’ll arm twist within their own party. If they don’t, because enough Democrats will vote in favor, they’ll allow those GOP to vote how they wish for political cover with their voters. Not much difference than in the Senate, where votes by Landrieu and others against the Dem majority are overlooked or excused by “look where they come from”. But when push comes to shove, they make the deals they need to pass SOMETHING. That’s why you have the ACA, because not enough DEMOCRATS wanted single payer or anything different. They had enough votes, numbers wise, to pass anything they wished, disregarding the GOP entirely. But the political reality was that they had to appease their own party members because there wasn’t party unity on what should be done. So they had to fight it out amongst their own party, and the fight is still resonating today.

              But you think the GOP, without having the ability to actually set and pass the agenda, should bloody themselves up and do the same. Sorry, they’re not that gullible. When push comes to shove and it COUNTS, they’re better at standing in lockstep than the Dems are – just look at what they’ve been able to block in the Senate by doing so. That, of course, you call obstruction.

            • MurphTheSurf3 says:

              Thanks for responding and you did what is so often done- you made GOP actions the responsibility of the Dems.

              There is NO WAY that the Senate will take up an ACA repeal, yet the House GOP passed it 50 plus times.

              There is NO WAY that the President would accept an ACA repeal bill if it were to pass the House and Senate.

              BUT the House GOP continued to do it. Why? It is one of the few things the House Majority could actually vote for in the majority.

              You do do know that this House now holds the record for passing the fewest number of bills ever….ever….

              Their majority cannot agree on an agenda. Until the can show they are capable of governing themselves they do not have credibility.

              There are six major measures that have been passed by the current house.

              Boehner says that he rises and falls on The Hastert Rule, the “majority of the majority” rule, the informal governing principle used by Republican Speakers of the House of Representatives since the mid-1990s to maintain their speakerships and limit the power of the minority party to bring bills up for a vote on the floor of the House.

              But the for the six bills in question here….Boehner could not make it happen.

              Boehner allowed a vote on January 1, 2013 on the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (also known as the “fiscal cliff bill”) with only 85 out of 241 Republicans in favor (a support level of only 35%) and the bill passed with the support of 90% of Democrats (172 out of 191).

              Two weeks later, on January 15, 2013, Boehner allowed a vote on aid to victims of Hurricane Sandy to take place without the support of a majority of the Republican caucus. The vote passed with 241 votes, but only 49 of the votes were from Republicans or a mere 21% of the majority.[23] Since then some notable Republicans have publicly questioned whether the “majority of the majority” rule is still viable or have proposed jettisoning it altogether.

              In spite of all the criticism, on February 28, 2013 Boehner brought a third bill for a vote on the floor of the house which did not have support of majority of Republicans. The bill, an extension of the Violence Against Women Act, received the vote of only 38% of the Republicans in the House of Representatives.

              On April 9, 2013, the “rule” was violated a fourth time, on a bill about federal acquisition of historic sites. The bill was passed with more than two thirds of the House vote but without a majority of the GOP caucus.[27] Shortly thereafter, Boehner said, “Listen: It was never a rule to begin with. And certainly my prerogative – my intention is to always pass bills with strong Republican support.”

              On October 16, 2013, Boehner again violated the rule by allowing a floor vote to reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling. The House voted 285 to 144 less than three hours after the Senate overwhelmingly passed the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014. The “yea” votes consisted of 198 Democrats and only 87 Republicans, less than 40% of the conference.

              On February 11, 2014, Boehner broke the rule by allowing a floor vote on a “clean” debt ceiling bill. The bill passed the house 221-201, with only 28 Republicans voting “yea” along with 193 Democrats.

              I make a simple case. The GOP cannot govern itself. It cannot provide the country with statement of its agenda that it translates into action in the House where it can pass any bill it wants.

              Your argument here is not an explanation. It is an excuse.

              On principle alone, one would think that the best of the GOP alternatives, the RSC offering, would be walked through the legislative process.

              THEY HAVE NOT EVEN HELD HEARINGS. THEY WILL NOT EVEN TALK ABOUT IT. WHY? They their own party will splinter over any discussion. All that they can agree on is what they do not want.

              A GOP majority in the Senate will be just as troubled.

  14. MilesLong says:

    As it stands now there probably won’t be a Republican in the White House for a good many terms, an attempt at impeaching President Obama would only increase that time span.

    Normally, Republicans would be more circumspect in their long-term planning, but with the election of so many TeaBaggers the aggregate IQ of the party has decreased precipitously.

    Far too often we have seen the more rabid members of the Republican Party commit political acts that only hurt their cause, the most recent government shut down being the latest, best example.

    The fact that racist factions of the Conservative Right, those still pissed that the South lost the war, will do anything they perceive as opposition to this president hasn’t been lost on Democrats.

    What’s patently unfortunate is that the philosophy of the Left has never been an attitude of “take no prisoners” as has completely permeated the Right. Democrats can’t even utter the word “lie” to the most egregious shouted protestations from Republican crazies.

    Personally I can’t wait for the House to initiate Impeachment proceedings. Perhaps that will serve to stiffen the spine of Democrats and maybe, just maybe, galvanize those in office and Democratic voters to stand and fight for what this country is supposed to stand for…

    Miles “Not Holding My Breath” Long

    • MurphTheSurf3 says:

      The national demographics are likely to keep them out of the WH for the foreseeable future which is why this mostly about keeping the House and, after taking the Senate, keeping it too.

      To overcome the damage done by the 2010 midterms which resulted in GOP control in critical states over the redistricting process resulting from the census. SO- the House has slid into red territory for the foreseeable future since gerrymandering make this undoable until 2020. The Senate has always been more of a tossup since every state no matter its population gets 2 senators. Look at a map of the states showing red, blue and the shades of purple in between.

      [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Red_and_Blue_States_Map_%28Average_Margins_of_Presidential_Victory%29.svg[/img]

      In order to compensate the Dems are going to need a tidal wave, a tsunami of support in 2014, 2016, 2018 and 2020 to put us back where we were in 2009.

      Every GOP effort is geared toward undermining that and they have three great allies:

      -- ignorant electorate
      -- plenty of money for propaganda and for creating organizations and on the ground GOTV efforts
      -- a willingness to set aside any vestige of truth telling.

      • antmousie says:

        I know it does little good to look back now, but I hope those dems, that stayed home in 2010, realize the damage they’ve contributed to. I hope, somehow, we are able hold the Senate, and keep them from, at the very least, gaining ground in the House. While they make the President’s life a living hell, they’re doing the same to the country.

        • MurphTheSurf3 says:

          Yes in 2010- a bunch of dems sat on their hands in the midterms because they always do ; some decided to voice their discontent with Obama and the Dems for not pushing the full liberal agenda hard enough, and some were won over to anti-ACA argument…

          That election created the census based gerrymandering in the House we are stuck with until 2020. The electoral map always favors the GOP in the Senate since so many small states (by population) are red.

          And now the new crusade is to link Electoral College votes to Congressional Districts and we know where that takes us.

          I have expanded my list a bit.

          The five great allies the GOP have are:

          1) The low information base common to most voters.
          2) Plenty of money to fill the ether with propaganda.
          3) A zealous and energized base.
          4) The apathy of some Democratic voters.
          5) The ideology of other Democratic voters that complains the Party is not Liberal enough.

        • Dimbulb2 says:

          I hope that the democratic reps that wasted their mandate in 2008 by acting like a bunch of 2 year olds fighting over some cat poop in the sandbox, try to actually do something if they ever again gain control of the house.

          • MurphTheSurf3 says:

            Begin with the electorate….Yes in 2010- a bunch of dems sat on their hands in the midterms because they always do ; some decided to voice their discontent with Obama and the Dems for not pushing the full liberal agenda hard enough, and some were won over to anti-ACA argument…

            That election created the census based gerrymandering in the House we are stuck with until 2020. The electoral map always favors the GOP in the Senate since so many small states (by population) are red.

            And now the new crusade is to link Electoral College votes to Congressional Districts and we know where that takes us.

            I have expanded my list a bit.

            The five great allies the GOP have are:

            1) The low information base common to most voters.
            2) Plenty of money to fill the ether with propaganda.
            3) A zealous and energized base.
            4) The apathy of some Democratic voters.
            5) The ideology of other Democratic voters that complains the Party is not Liberal enough.

            NOW- you bring up an additional point- the Dems in the House and Senate who kept insisting on making deals with the GOP and who appealed to the Blue Dog Nature of their constituencies as the need for that- states and districts that leaned right and voted both Dem and GOP. What good did that do. Obama is often accused of having squandered a super majority in the Senate. 9 of those Senators fall into the Blue Dog category. Most are gone.

    • antmousie says:

      The South lost the war? Tell that to all them folks who are still fightin’ “the war of Northern aggression”, and their Northern sympathizers. I’ve no doubt that if they hold the House after the election, they’ll start Impeachment proceedings, and likely Impeach, for no other reason than to leave a permanent black mark intended)by this President’s name. BTW, I really hope you’re correct, and we won’t see another GOTPer in the White House any time soon.

      • MilesLong says:

        The election and re-election of President Obama gave lie to the notion of White Exceptionalism in this country and scared far too many whites into believing that white privilege was on the wane.

        To that end, those whites are doing what everyone does regardless of race, national origin, etc, they are projecting what will happen to them when they finally become a minority in this country.

        Given the unquestionable evil non-whites have suffered in this country, bigoted, racist whites are convinced that the same deprivations are going to be visited on them once they become a minority.

        The resurgence of public hatred, the legislation passed on Stand Your Ground Laws which essentially allows cowardly whites to kill non-whites, mostly Blacks, with impunity, and the denaturing of the Voting Rights Act and Affirmative Action are all examples of the “Blacklash” of President Obama’s election.

        And it’s not just race that has been effected. The attack on equality under the law for women has taken a beating as well. In addition to attacking a woman’s right to choose what’s best for her own health, white, Conservative men have been doing their best to decriminalize rape. What’s up with that?

        There isn’t a single policy that wealthy Conservatives advocate that is of benefit to the majority of those who live in this country. But they organize, they plan, they draw district boundaries, they get out and vote in off-presidential elections, and they write tax code to enrich themselves, protect themselves and maintain their power over us all.

        And their foot soldiers are the Cliven Bundys, the George Zimmermans, etc. They keep America scared fearful against doing the moral and ethical things necessary to bring us back to sanity in their unreasoned fear of those who merely have a different skin color.

        Murph is right in part, but an Impeachment is nothing but window dressing and the merest tip of an iceberg that has marched us closer and closer to a country that has nothing to offer except to the 3,000,000 wealthiest families who live here.

        Sorry for the mini-rant, but the ease of which the Wealthy Right pulled off the Dumbing Down of America, especially on the working and poor, often sets me off.

        Miles “Wondering If My Wealth Will Insulate Me” Long

        • MurphTheSurf3 says:

          I heard a “joke” in SC in late 2008 after Obama was elected- “What’s that black man going to be doing in the White House anyway unless he’s serving coffee, cleaning up a restroom, or driver a car for someone else.” Folks laugh. That Obama was being “uppity”, was “an angry black man from the hood”, was an “alien”, an “other” sitting in the Oval Office brought every nascent and dormant strain of racial, ethnic and class based anger, anxiety and fear to the fore. Obama is the poster child for “them” taking over “our country.”

          How often have we heard these words: “I want my country back.” Back from whom? Back from “them.”

          Yes the impeachment is an expression, one of many, of this sentiment.

          Miles, you should be doing posts/articles here. This last comment would be a fine example of this. Add a headline, an image, a couple of tags/labels and you’ve got it.

          Interested? There are folks here willing to help.

          • MilesLong says:

            I like the idea, I write novels and screenplays for supplemental income. It’s worth talking about.

            Miles “Let’s Chat” Long

            • AdLib says:

              Miles, unlike HP and a number of other major sites, members here at PlanetPOV have the opportunity to write articles on the issues that matter to them and those articles can appear on our front page and are read by folks all around the world.

              We have a quite insightful and faithful readership, it can be very rewarding to write a post that inspires vibrant and thoughtful conversations between a variety of conscientious people.

              Like HP, Daily Kos and all major blog sites, members aren’t paid to post comments or posts (even the posts you’ve read at HP from celebrities and well known political figures aren’t paid for their posts).

              We sure do hope you’ll want to join the lineup of talented authors here at The Planet!

            • Kalima says:

              Actually Murph, you just have to go to your Dashboard, click on the Options on the top left hand side. Click again on Posts, and then choose Add New/+New to start an article here. We will then offer any help to complete it, review and edit it, then publish it. Very simple really and a great way to contribute to our site.

            • MurphTheSurf3 says:

              You need to chat with Ad Lib our site administrator…..

              I will happily join in.

        • Great comment Miles. I in no way, take it as a rant. You have really laid your finger on the many evils that exist today, mainly in the GOP/TP and unfortunately, some complicit dems in the house and senate.

          I put much stock in the old adage about the love of money being the root of evil. Add to that, the lust for power and the result is genuine spiritual death. America, in my opinion now suffers from a real spiritual sickness, and I’m not talking about a convoluted, organized religion version of spirituality, but just a simple awareness that we are all in the same boat and we are all made of the same stuff. To realize that we are all just much smaller parts of a much greater whole. Simple, but hugely beneficial.

      • MurphTheSurf3 says:

        In this I think you are correct.

        This is not just political or economic, it is a personal hatred that transcends any element of rationality.

        For much of the GOP base and their reps Obama is the embodiment of the loss of their America…and the case that he is a illegitimate president is made everytime something like this comes up.

        Take a look at what I wrote in reply to the same post regarding red and blue states. It is the comment right above yours.

    • Nirek says:

      Miles, I don’t wish for an impeachment of President Obama. However I agree that it would make the GOtP an even lesser party than it is now.

      I find it hard to believe so many people are ignorant enough to believe so many LIES! They can’t tell the truth even when it would better serve them.

      • MurphTheSurf3 says:

        Nirek, take a look at my post regarding red and blue states above. I think that this has little to do with the WH but everything to do with control of Congress.

        While it may be hard to believe….the lies feel like sweet, sweet truth to many -- I live in a state where this is proven every day.


Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Ongoing Stories
Features