[Winstonm]

From Huffington Post:

Quote

Sarah Palin raised eyebrows last week when she called on Congress to impeach President Barack Obama, but a new HuffPost/YouGov poll shows that the former Alaska governor is not alone. A third of Americans, and two-thirds of Republicans, think Obama should be impeached.

Although not explicitly stated, my guess is that the "and 1/3 of Americans" represents mostly Republicans, as well, so what you have in this poll is something like 22% of Republicans calling for impeachment, and media outlets reporting this as somehow "newsworthy".

It seems to me that the U.S. has always had a crazy and warped minority political sideshow of some sort - The John Birch Society, Students for a Democratic Society - but for the most part those outlandish views were expressed by the media with a large dollop of incredulity about their significance, if they were indeed reported at all.

Now, though, it seems the more outrageous the story, the more it is reported.

Is this a good thing? A bad thing? Does it matter? Should it matter? Will it change?

[Thiros]

I am no fan of this administration, but the case for impeaching Clinton was better.

[blackshoe]

I doubt Obama will be impeached. I'm certain he would not be convicted if he were. I do not agree that "2/3 of Republicans" equates to "22% of Republicans".

[1eyedjack]

For the benefit of us non-americans who have not been following it closely, what would be the charges under which they envisage that Obama might be impeached? (or for that matter Clinton when he was in office?)

[blackshoe]

His maneuverings wrt Obamacare come to mind, in particular delaying implementation of parts of it, contrary to what Congress passed into law.

[kenberg]

1eyedjack, on 2014-July-14, 22:45, said:

For the benefit of us non-americans who have not been following it closely, what would be the charges under which they envisage that Obama might be impeached? (or for that matter Clinton when he was in office?)

Actually quite a few of us Americans don't follow this closely either. I gather it goes something like this: All presidents have the authority to do some things by executive order. They nare executives, not robots. That is, they simply announce that something will be done. They of course do not have unlimited such power. Blackshoe mentions maneuvers with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

In a nutshell I think it goes as follows:
Defense: All presidents use the power of executive order and Obama has used it fewer times than many of his predecessors.
Offense: Counting the number is not the issue, it's a matter of whether these uses are lawful.

My view in a nutshell: This is all silly. There is a reason Sara Palin is involved in it.

I imagine that there is room for argument, there usually is.

As to Clinton, the reason was that he lied under oath. On the other hand, he lied about sex. On the other other hand, sex sometimes involves more than sex, it also involves the improper use of power.

Impeachment should be used only when it must be used, and then it should be used with caution and with great regret. Party doesn't matter for this.

[hrothgar]

1eyedjack, on 2014-July-14, 22:45, said:

For the benefit of us non-americans who have not been following it closely, what would be the charges under which they envisage that Obama might be impeached?

Governing while black...

[Trinidad]

1eyedjack, on 2014-July-14, 22:45, said:

For the benefit of us non-americans who have not been following it closely, what would be the charges under which they envisage that Obama might be impeached? (or for that matter Clinton when he was in office?)

Old Dutch saying: Whoever wants to hit a dog will always find a stick.

Meaning: Whoever wants to impeach Obama will always find a charge.

Rik

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2014-July-14, 23:06, said:

His maneuverings wrt Obamacare come to mind, in particular delaying implementation of parts of it, contrary to what Congress passed into law.

If that would really be a reason to impeach a president, they should have impeached the entire GWB government and the Pentagon over the WMDs in Iraq...

But as they say, you always trip over a stone, never over a rock...

Rik

[PassedOut]

It is sad to see the political party of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt slide deeper and deeper into utter stupidity. Sad, and dangerous.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2014-July-14, 22:12, said:

I doubt Obama will be impeached. I'm certain he would not be convicted if he were. I do not agree that "2/3 of Republicans" equates to "22% of Republicans".

Admittedly the 22% estimate may not be simply Republicans - some independents could be in that mix.

[Winstonm]

1eyedjack, on 2014-July-14, 22:45, said:

For the benefit of us non-americans who have not been following it closely, what would be the charges under which they envisage that Obama might be impeached? (or for that matter Clinton when he was in office?)

Wikepedia

Quote

The Constitution defines impeachment at the federal level and limits impeachment to "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" who may be impeached and removed only for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".

However, as impeachment is a political process, the "high crimes and misdemeanors" can be rather vague. It is also a two-step process, with the House of Representatives having sole power to impeach, but the Senate having the power then to try the impeached and find guilt or non-guilt of the impeachable offenses.

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power.

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on 2014-July-15, 05:14, said:

Governing while black...

This would be the funniest post of the decade if it weren't for the fact that it is sadly all too true.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2014-July-15, 06:13, said:

Admittedly the 22% estimate may no be simply Republicans - some independents could be in that mix.

Actually, if 1/3 of Americans favor impeachment and only 22% of Republicans do then there would have to be a great many others who do. Suppose we look at 100 voters and 1/3 of them are in favor of impeachment. That's 33 to 34 voters. Now suppose 40 of those 100 are Republicans. That's 40 people. Suppose 22% of these 40 people favor impeachment. That's 9 voters, approximately. To get up to 33, we need 24 (out of 60) non-Republicans to favor impeachment. That would be 40% of non-Republicans. And that probably would qualify as news.

I'm not sure how you came to 22%, but it's not at all plausible, no matter what percentage of the population is Republican.

Another way of looking at it: If 40 out of 100 are Republican, if 33 out of 100 favor impeachment, and if most of those favoring impeachment are Republican say 30 of the 33, then we would have 30 out of 40, or 75%, of Republicans favoring impeachment. This could reasonably qualify as news. Rather frightening, actually. People need to distinguish between "I didn't vote for him" and "We should impeach him".

.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2014-July-15, 06:53, said:

Actually, if 1/3 of Americans favor impeachment and only 22% of Republicans do then there would have to be a great many others who do. Suppose we look at 100 voters and 1/3 of them are in favor of impeachment. That's 33 to 34 voters. Now suppose 40 of those 100 are Republicans. That's 40 people. Suppose 22% of these 40 people favor impeachment. That's 9 voters, approximately. To get up to 33, we need 24 (out of 60) non-Republicans to favor impeachment. That would be 40% of non-Republicans. And that probably would qualify as news.

I'm not sure how you came to 22%, but it's not at all plausible, no matter what percentage of the population is Republican.

Another way of looking at it: If 40 out of 100 are Republican, if 33 out of 100 favor impeachment, and if most of those favoring impeachment are Republican say 30 of the 33, then we would have 30 out of 40, or 75%, of Republicans favoring impeachment. This could reasonably qualify as news. Rather frightening, actually. People need to distinguish between "I didn't vote for him" and "We should impeach him".

.

Ken,

I simply assumed that of the "Americans" in the poll that most who answered "impeach" were also Republicans. If the assumption is reasonable, that almost all of the "impeach" responses (whether stated as from Americans or as from Republicans) actually represented "Republicans, stated or not", then the 67% of the "party" really dips to only 22% of the Republican Party.

See, I still give the Republican Party the respect that it is only their public persona that is whacko - but I may be giving them too much credit.

It is simply too ridiculous, to me, anyway, to think that 67% of all Republicans genuinely think President Obama should be impeached. So I assume the poll wording was flawed, and it is only real nutcases like Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz who promote the Wingnut Silly Walk.

[akwoo]

It really would not surprise me if 67% of Republicans think President Obama should be impeached.

You should keep in mind that a 2011 poll found 46% of Mississippi Republicans think interracial marriage should be illegal.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2014-July-14, 23:06, said:

His maneuverings wrt Obamacare come to mind, in particular delaying implementation of parts of it, contrary to what Congress passed into law.

If this actually came to pass, it would have to stand as one of the most outrageous, hypocritical political maneuvers of all time. Republicans fought tooth and nail against the ACA, and after a watered-down version passed, the House of Representatives held frequent votes to repeal it.

Then they have the temerity to suggest impeaching Obama for delaying implementation, because it's contrary to what Congress passed!

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2014-July-15, 09:47, said:

Ken,
the 67% of the "party" really dips to only 22% of the Republican Party.

See, I still give the Republican Party the respect that it is only their public persona that is whacko - but I may be giving them too much credit.

I must be missing something, I just don't get what you are saying here.The article is saying 2/3 of Republicans, which seems roughly in line with 1/3 of Americans.
The 22% is a mystery to me. Probably this number is not crucial.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2014-July-15, 10:46, said:

I must be missing something, I just don't get what you are saying here.The article is saying 2/3 of Republicans, which seems roughly in line with 1/3 of Americans.
The 22% is a mystery to me. Probably this number is not crucial.

Ken,

Math was not my forte', you may have guessed. Anyway, this guy states my basic premise, regardless of exact numbers:

Quote

Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho) said Tuesday that only a small fraction of Republicans agree with Palin. He said he does not think Obama's actions have reached the level to qualify for impeachment.

My point - a quite small percentage of Americans are being given a quite loud voice by the media, etc.

[FM75]

math - schmath!

What responsible republican would want Joseph Biden to be president!

Uh oh, Is race, not politics, the issue? Or are there democrats disappointed in Obama?

Let's go to the record - never mind...
Gitmo is still full of prisoners even in term two. Republicans have to love the dude.