Impeach Obama? Not So Fast, Say Some Republicans

It seems as if members of the far right have spent almost the entirety of the Obama administration’s time in office coming up with different reasons to impeach the president.

First were the “birther” folk who swore he wasn’t president because he allegedly wasn’t born in the country–regardless of how often they were given information proving them wrong. More recently it was over the Benghazi scandal, followed by the belief that he sicced the IRS on various Tea Party groups. Now, a section of the GOP is getting itself into a lather yet again, and this time it’s over immigration.

Impeaching Obama is usually a gimmick meant to raise candidate funds, sell books or get listeners on talk radio stations, but the President’s use of executive actions to try to accomplish at least something while the do nothing Republican majority in the House blocks anything the President supports, has brought even more conservative big wigs into the debate.

According to the Associated Press, Florida Republican Tea Partier Allen West, a former congressman, demanded impeachment be considered after President Obama negotiated the release of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdhal in exchange for some Taliban prisoners, accusing the President of unjustifiable unilateral action. “I submit that Barack Hussein Obama’s unilateral negotiations with terrorists and the ensuing release of their key leadership without consult — mandated by law — with the U.S. Congress represents high crimes and misdemeanors, an impeachable offense,” West wrote on his website.

If there are Tea Partiers shouting things about the president, though, you know that Sarah Palin is in the mix. Referring to the recent immigration crisis (which has worsened because the GOP has refused to consider any amnesty or path to citizenship policies, or any potential immigration reform at all), Palin wrote in a column that, “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, of course, is a failed vice presidential contender who is no longer an office holder, so does her opinion about the fate of the president really matter? Yes, says the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake. “She’s the first Republican of any significant national stature to make this call,” writes Blake. “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.”

Impeachment talk is spreading even to politicians who have more to lose, too. Iowa senate candidate Joni Ernst also added her voice to the call, a very interesting development since Iowa, in general, isn’t that much of a conservative state overall. Ernst was caught calling the president a “dictator” at a GOP event back in January and arguing that he should be feeling the consequences of his actions “whether that’s removal from office, whether that’s impeachment.” She then reiterated the idea just a few weeks ago on a local talk show.When asked if Speaker of the House John Boehner should start impeachment proceedings for President Obama, Ernst agree, stating, “If he thinks he has a case, then he should proceed with that.”

Still most Republicans, even those on the fringe, recognize the impeachment debate is one they can’t win, and that will only hurt the party overall. Speaker John Boehner has publicly and firmly disagreed with Palin, and even Republican Pat Robertson, no moderate by any means, has acknowledged that the party really needs to clamp down on the “throw him out of office” talk.

“With the economy shrinking 3 percent in the first quarter, with Obama sinking in public approval, and with the IRS, NSA and VA scandals bubbling, why would Republicans change the subject to impeachment?” Robertson writes in his own column. “The effect would be to enrage and energize the Democratic base, bring out the African-American vote in force and cause the major media to charge the GOP with a racist scheme to discredit and destroy our first black president. If the nation is led to believe Republicans seek to gain the Senate so they can remove Barack Obama from office after a GOP-led impeachment, then Republicans are not likely to win the Senate.”

Will the pragmatic side of the GOP be able to reign in their impeachment demanding fringe? Probably. The question is, will the Tea Party come back and primary them out of office as payback?

Photo credit: Thinkstock


Jim Ven
Jim Ven1 years ago

thanks for the article.

Michael T.
Michael T3 years ago

Thanks Frank my apologies to so many posts to tell the story, but there wasn't any way I could find to still relay the full story about how Uncle Milty and company could and did get it so wrong.

Cheers to you Robert H for your concise and brief expose of Ayn Ran poop. Cheers to you too Frank for your research and data and also for pointing out the extremely important errors, that were flagrant in someone's propaganda posts.

donald Baumgartner

Robert H: A THOUSAND stars to you !! You nailed it on the head !!!!

Robert Hamm
Robert Hamm3 years ago

Ayn Rand wrote FICTION and PRETENED it was a serious philosophy…….even gave it a name. All she did was con weak minds into accepting her me me me me me mindset.
I got mine F**K You

Frank Hanline
Frank Hanline3 years ago

@ Michael T: Awesome takedown of Uncle Milty. Many stars to you

Angela Roquemore
Angela Roquemore3 years ago

A sign og the Apocalypse: When you agree with this: "Pat Robertson, no moderate by any means, has acknowledged that the party really needs to clamp down on the “throw him out of office” talk."


Janet B.
Janet B3 years ago


Tim W.
Timothy W3 years ago

David F.
Trickle down never works for the average people. It only works for those at the top.. If you can in anyway claim balanced budgets under GOP regimes using trickle down economics it is only because at the same time they cut aid and benefits to those who need it. Eventually the same thing will always happen. The rich save money because fools like you want to give them the breaks they ask for even though they do not need them with the promise that they will pass it down with more pay and jobs. That never happens. They make more money and don't want to part with it. Then eventually the people who make that money for them find they can't afford to buy as much, borrow money to get buy and then the guys on top start making less money because none of those little people are spending money. It keeps going round and round. If trickle down is going to work it would have to have regulation, which your people don't like either. If you give the wealthy a huge tax break in the hopes that they create more and better paying jobs, then there needs to be oversight to ensure they stick to that plan, but that is when they cry to much government.

Michael T.
Michael T3 years ago

Since the ‘80s, the top salaries

and pay packages awarded to executives of the largest companies and financial firms in the U.S.

have reached obscen and unnecessary heights.

This, coupled with low growth and stagnation of wages for the vast majority of workers, has meant growing inequality.

As income from labor gets more and more unequal, income from capital starts to play a bigger role. By the time you get to the .01 percent, virtually all your income comes from capital—stuff like dividends and capital gains. That’s when wealth (what you have) starts to matter more than income (what you earn).

Wealth gathering at the top

creates all sorts of problems.

Some of these elites will hoard their wealth and fail to do anything productive with it.

Others channel it into harmful activities like speculation, which can throw the economy out of whack. Some increase their wealth by preying on the less well-off.

As inequality grows, regular people lose their purchasing power. They go into debt.

The economy gets destabilized.

So when someone shows me a picture of Uncle Milty and claims the government is hurting the wealthy and the economy with tax increases ON the wealthy, I'd like to smack them over the head with a baseball bat because it is clear they don't have a clue.

(Piketty, and many other economists, count the increase in inequality as one of the reasons the economy blew up in 2007-'08.)

Michael T.
Michael T3 years ago

People like Milton Friedman,

an academic economist, were doing rather well in the economy, likely sitting in the top 10 percent income level, and to them, the economy appeared to be doing just fine and rewarding talents and merits very nicely.

But the Friedmans weren’t paying enough attention to how the folks on the rungs above them, particularly the one percent and even more so the .01 percent, were beginning to climb into the stratosphere.

The people doing that climbing were mostly

not academic economists,

or lawyers,

or doctors.

They were managers of large firms

who had begun to award themselves very prodigious, lets call it what it was, OBSCENE salaries.

(Not for doing anything different or better than their predecessors, but because profits were so good, they were able to do it, and get away with it.)

This phenomenon really got going after 1980, when wealth started flowing in vast quantities from the bottom 90 percent of the population to the top 10 percent.

By 1987, Ayn Rand acolyte Alan Greenspan (another BIG JERK) had taken over as head of the Federal Reserve, and free market fever was unleashed upon America.

People in U.S. business schools started reading Ayn Rand's kooky novels as if they were serious economic treatises and hailing the free market as the only path to progress.