Rep. Todd Akin (R) of Missouri, a U.S. Senate candidate this year, hosted a town-hall meeting this week, and heard from a constituent who wants to see President Obama impeached. The right-wing congressman seemed quite fond of the idea.
If you can't make out the audio, Akin considered the "tactical" question of what would happen to the articles of impeachment in the Senate, but added, "At a certain point you just say, 'Enough, I don't care enough about the Senate, duty calls us to just get up and just impeach this guy.'" The Missouri Republican added that the president is "a complete menace to our civilization."
And on what grounds, pray tell, would Akin try to impeach Obama? The Senate candidate pointed to "all of the czars" and the notion that the president "completely ignores the train wreck of the economy." He wasn't kidding.
This is obviously ridiculous rhetoric from an unhinged conservative, but I'm fascinated by how often Republicans use the "I" word in public, as if presidential impeachment is some sort of toy.
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) talked last month about impeaching Obama for no apparent reason; Fox News' Neil Cavuto suggested in January that Obama might be open to impeachment over recess appointments; Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) has raised the prospect of impeaching Obama over DOMA; and Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) talked up the idea of presidential impeachment because "it would tie things up" in Washington for a while, making governing impossible.
What's more, in 2010, both Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) also raised the specter of impeaching Obama.
I don't seriously expect congressional Republicans to pursue this, but the fact that so many GOP lawmakers feel comfortable speaking like this, out loud and in public, is a reminder of just how extreme some elements of the Republican Party have become.
Leave a Comment:
Yes, teh Black Man in the WH scares the living daylights of the GOP. They have even suggested Obama is the Antichrist. Why? Here's a possible expleanation:
The Bible says "God created man in his image and likeness'.
However, it seems that MAN, at least Conservative man, has created God in his image. In the mind, art and dialogue of many western Christian of whatever stripe, Jesus is a blond, blue eyes, handsome young man.
The truth is that Jesus, most likely, was a short, dark skinned, black eyed and curly haired Jew from the hills of Judea that bore no resemblance to the popular image.
A Blond, blue eyed Jesus is GOOD, sweet, approachable, ACCEPTABLE.
A Dark skinned, dark haired, truely Jewish Jesus does not fit into that image and is therefore UNACCEPTABLE.
Extend that to the WH: Only a white person is supposed to be president. However twisted that man may be, that is ACCEPTABLE, familiar.
A black man in the WH is as anathema as a dark skinned Jesus and therefore, MUST be the Antichrist.
i actually was told in one of my high school classes that our modern image of jesus is based of the looks of constantine instead of the real image you describe. dunno the factual background of this, but i've always found it fascinating
I think some folks just have trouble with the difference in meaning between "recall" and "impeach". They want to recall Mr. Obama, and they know that "impeach" is the word you use in that context. But to them, it is still just about popularity; in their minds, if you don't like the president, the Constitution, in its wisdom, provides a means to remove him. The Rs don't mind stringing their base along with this misapprehension.
Competely and utterly insane!!! Has the Republican Party lost all sense of ethics and to say the least their morals? There is nothing in the United States Constitution that states being an African American President being duly elected into office is a impeachable offense. Neither is stepping on their toes!!!
Those of us from Missouri are embarassed by nitwits like this one and Steven Tilley, the nutjob who put Rush Limbaugh in the hall of (IN) Famous Missourians. There are some people in Missouri with an IQ over room temperature in Celcius and who understand that they are represented by complete idiots. Sadly, there seem to be too few.
And wouldn't you know that Michael Burgess, from Texas, would favor impeachment of Obama because "it would tie things up for awhile" in Washington! That's been the whole scheme of the republicans ever since Obama was elected! I see the republican party as a bunch a little kids who are mad they didn't get chosen and have tried to get the "chosen" one out of office! It sounds so ridiculously elementary schoolish and stupid!!
I actually lived in Mr Burgess's district for most of my life (recently moved). His seat was formerly held by Dick Army (of Freedom Works). I used to think he was a decent rep, but that's changed.
For one, he's an OBGYN that falls lockstep with the republican positions on contraception (ie no access). How you responsibly take care of your patient's needs as a n OBGYN without that is kind of beyond me. He endorses Newt Gingrich, he pulls this crap.
He's the epitome of the republican party. Seems nice and decent until you realize they aren't listening to a word you're saying to them.
The phrase from the Constitution is "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" and I don't think many people realize the two terms aren't synonymous.
"High crimes" is fairly self-explanatory. Treason, bribery, corruption are certainly included in the mix, but there's also such things as mis-using Federal resources. Anyone remember Nixon's "enemy list" and how he tried to sic the IRS onto some of those on that list? That would also satisfy the impeachment standards.
It's the "Misdemeanors" part in particular that I find interesting. Misdemeanors are minor crimes, often punished only with a fine and possibly some period of probation. Yet the Framers of the Constitution specifically included this type of criminal behavior as a valid excuse for impeachment! Why?
I can think of two possible reasons for this otherwise strange inclusion. First, the President is not a monarch. He is subject to all the laws every other citizen is subject to. If he's out for a stroll, say, sees a tree full of apples behind a fence marked "No Trespassing", if he jumps the fence and picks an apple, he's liable to the same punishment that would apply to any citizen who did the same. In other words, he has to obey the laws. If it's against the law to wiretap someone without a warrant, then the President has to get a warrant, too. I don't know what the applicable term for the crime would be if a private citizen wiretapped someone, but I seriously doubt it would be a felony.
Secondly, everyone can make mistakes and that, I believe is why "Misdemeanors" is pluralized. If the President makes a mistake, admits it and doesn't do it again, no problem. If the same behavior continues, however, then the "Misdemeanors" might apply. Should, for example, the President personally be honest, but continually surrounds himself with dishonest cronies and heeds their advice, again, "Misdemeanors" could be applied. Grant and Harding come to mind as examples of such Presidents. I would thinkappointees that are voted on by the Senate are in a slightly different category as the responsibility is somewhat diluted.
As best as I can tell, any activity that could lead to a private citizen being charged with a misdemeanor could (should?) also apply to the occupant of the Oval Office. There is the potential problem, of course, of the President becoming bogged down defending himself against charges brought against him solely for partisan purposes.
Can you say William Jefferson Clinton? I knew you could...