Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Someone make Charles Murray just choose already Previous entry: Music Fridays: The Long Slog Edition

Don’t think they’re not looking to impeachment

Oh, lookee here, Grover Norquist is making impeachment threats against the President if he doesn't extend the Bush tax cuts:

Obama can sit there and let all the tax [cuts] lapse, and then the Republicans will have enough votes in the Senate in 2014 to impeach.

He spends a lot of time in this interview lying, claiming that things that the Republicans caused are Obama's fault (such as the "not working together" whine), but the boldness of this is breath-taking. But I'm glad he said it, because a lot of Beltway media is happy to convince themselves that the 1998 impeachment was an anomaly that was unique to the Clinton White House. Instead, I'd say that we're better off assuming that Republicans feel that it's always an option they're eager to take when an "illegitimate", i.e. Democratic, President is in the White House. That his race and family background causes conservatives to panic only makes the whole situation worse. 

Republicans simply believe the White House belongs to them, and one party should hold it in perpetuity. Unfortunately, this idea that a Democrat holding that office is somehow an interloper has subtly seeped into the unconscious of people who would probably even voted for Obama. I've noticed a maddening habit in the mainstream media of claiming that Republicans are seeking to "reclaim" the White House, as if it was theirs to begin with. I haven't heard that verb used with relation to Democrats, who tend to merely "win" that election. Perhaps I'm paranoid, but I do listen carefully for these things. Subtle things like that end up reinforcing conservatives' belief that they're the only "real" Americans, and that therefore the White House is their property.

What's funny, of course, is that they just get more shrill about how they're the only "real" Americans when the people who have the markers of the tribe---white, Christian suburbanites who adhere to more traditional gender roles---are dwindling in numbers compared to the rest of us. Unfortunately, we need to realize that their panic over this is only going to make them more determined to impeach Obama the first chance they get on the thinnest of made-up charges. It's not like Republicans in Congress have anything better to do with their time. All they ever do is try to get more tax cuts for the wealthy and push anti-choice legislation. That's not really a full time job, giving congressional Republicans lots of time to concoct ways to impeach the President. 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 10:22 AM • (65) Comments

then the Republicans will have enough votes in the Senate in 2014 to impeach.

Well, that’s certainly forward thinking.  Grover is already predicting Democrats will keep the Oval Office, lose the Senate, and fail to retake the House with that magic crystal ball of his.  I would have thought Grover would be more concerned with winning in ‘12 than impeaching in ‘14.  But… whatever.

Please, House GOP.  Please, please, please impeach the President.  Especially over tax cuts for rich people.  That would just be divine.  We’ve already got a Congress polling in the single digits approval-wise.  I can’t see anything bad happening to you guys if you go into full-blown throw-down mode.

Comment #1: Zifnab  on  01/30  at  11:19 AM

Let them.

Remember that Clinton wound up more popular when he left due to the impeachment?  And he actually was what they said he was - an adulterer.

As the reality of the GOP candidate clown show seeps in and Obama looks more and more likely to be in until 2016, I’ve seen wingnuts desperately attempting to gin up “scandals” - “Solyndra”, “Fast and Furious”, “Gun-walker”.  They’re bullshit.  If the teabaggers manage to get a GOP Congress to impeach on that bullshit, Obama will wind up so popular he’ll have his face carved on Mount Rushmore.

Comment #2: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  01/30  at  11:20 AM

I think its time to modify one of the GOP’s recent policies.  Drug testing for those on wingnut welfare to find out what stuff Grover has been smoking.

Comment #3: bexley  on  01/30  at  11:37 AM

I really can’t get over that they think (and I believe they do think this) they can impeach over a policy issue. A tax rate being equated with a “High Crime.” (Then again, with the Roberts court, maybe they can.)

On the one hand, yeah, fellas, go with that, and see where it gets you. On the other hand, what the fucking fuck?!?

Comment #4: benvolio  on  01/30  at  11:38 AM

Huh?

then the Republicans will have enough votes in the Senate in 2014 to impeach.

The Senate doesn’t impeach. The House does. (And, fwiw, they already have enough votes there.)

The Senate tries a President who has been impeached. And it needs 67 votes to do so.  And there’s simply no way that the Republicans emerge from next fall’s election (or even the 2014 elections) with 67 Senators…especially if Obama wins reelection.

I suspect Grover Norquist doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Constitution, but he should be at least a little more familiar with it.

Comment #5: Ben Alpers  on  01/30  at  11:49 AM

It’s interesting how much the Reichwing vilifies our neighbors to the south, when Mexican history provides such a great example  of what the Republicans obviously desire.

Start those impeachments early and often and you too can be the only viable party for 70-some odd years.  Competition?  Better to talk about it than actually have it.  Democracy is great — limited to Republicans only…

Comment #6: MikeEss  on  01/30  at  11:50 AM

Solyndra!  i.e. the thinnest of made up charges

Comment #7: Satanicpanic  on  01/30  at  11:58 AM

Ok.  All this will do is make impeachment meaningless.  Instead of a terribly important thing done for important reasons, it will end up being something Republicans try to do to every Democratic president.  *shrug*

Comment #8: hideandseek  on  01/30  at  12:16 PM

@MikeEss: I wish it were only a joke… I’m pretty sure Karl Rove came out and said as much, that he wanted the Republican Party to control the entire government. Because nothing bad has ever happened when one party controlled all of government.

Comment #9: progrocker  on  01/30  at  12:17 PM

Funny how the better President Obama’s reelection chances get, the more impeachment talks come up. It’s almost as if the GOP thinks “If you can’t beat ‘em, impeach ‘em.”

On the other hand, if the lemmings do chose to race over that suicide slope, then VP Biden’s chance at the White House will be immeasurably improved.

Comment #10: Blue Jean  on  01/30  at  12:21 PM

Bleaugh!  “Biden’s chances in ‘16,” I should say.  Because a) there’s no way the GOP could come up with 67 votes to convict, even if the House was stupid enough to impeach, and b) once President Obama’s finished his second term, the aforesaid House would be giving VP Biden a nail he could hammer to the GOP “The folks who would rather argue about impeachment than improving Americans’ lives.”

Comment #11: Blue Jean  on  01/30  at  12:26 PM

@hideandseek #8:
I think that’s the point. After the frivolous impeachment of Clinton, it would have looked like partisan pettiness to impeach Bush for his ACTUAL crimes. If they can discredit the idea of impeachment further, the next Repub president will basically have carte blanche to do wtf ever they want.

Comment #12: DataSnake  on  01/30  at  12:29 PM

Solyndra!  i.e. the thinnest of made up charges

It’s not about trumped up charges, it’s about highlighting the Presidents “failed policies”.  Nevermind, Solyndra funds were in the hopper back to the Bush Admin or that a number of Republicans - including Darrell Issa, the GOP’s point man on dirt digging - supported and profited from funding the company.  Or that the company had substantial outside investment.

It’s all about calling Obama a job-destroying, welfare-providing, ideological, partisan, failure of a President.  Facts be damned.

Comment #13: Zifnab  on  01/30  at  12:30 PM

Why would we nominate Biden, exactly?  He’s older, prone to gaffs, and not as popular as other members of the administration or Senate.

Comment #14: Crissa  on  01/30  at  12:38 PM

I’m not sure that’s true, DataSnake. 

The Democrats couldn’t impeach Bush for his crimes because they were complicit, not because they were scared of looking petty.

Comment #15: hideandseek  on  01/30  at  12:45 PM

I really can’t get over that they think (and I believe they do think this) they can impeach over a policy issue. A tax rate being equated with a “High Crime.” (Then again, with the Roberts court, maybe they can.)

Oh, but of course. For conservatives, there’s only one real law: what’s best for the overlords. (I refer to the capitalist overlords, not the Reptilian overlords.) All those long-winded “regulations” and “laws” on the books are just for show. If they get in the way, they can be safely ignored.

Which is why Reagan can commit high treason by selling arms to an enemy state and nobody bats an eyelash, but if Obama sets policy in a Constitutional, legal, procedural manner, he’s suddenly facing threats of impeachment.

Comment #16: Triplanetary  on  01/30  at  12:59 PM

For Republicans a “high crime” is being a Democrat.

Comment #17: carswell  on  01/30  at  01:05 PM

I guess a President Biden who follows the same policies as Obama is preferable because of some reason or another. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but I’m certain there’s something someone could point out that is different between the two. Maybe, as Governor Brewer of Arizona put it, it’s that Obama is “thin-skinned”. I’m not certain that’s exactly it, but it seems like there’s some sort of subtle hint there.

Comment #18: 3letterjon  on  01/30  at  01:09 PM

benvolio - Most likely, the Roberts court would decide that the question of what constitutes a “high crime and misdemeanor” is a political question with which the courts should not get involved. And that’s probably a good position in the sense that the Constitution pretty clearly sets up impeachment as something that the judiciary is only involved in to the extent that the Chief Justice presides over the trial when it involves the President.

So, basically, a high crime or misdemeanor is whatever a majority of the House says it is. The procedure has only ever been invoked twice in over 200 years of American history, so I’m not sure we’re at the point yet where we can say it’s a definition too open to abuse.

Comment #19: jeevmon  on  01/30  at  01:25 PM

The sick thing is they already have good reason to impeach Obama, as Bush before him: war crimes. However, in bizarro world 2012 America, the only real crime imaginable is taxing the rich.

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/23/western_justice_and_transparency/singleton/

Comment #20: vitaminC  on  01/30  at  01:30 PM

The sick thing is they already have good reason to impeach Obama, as Bush before him: war crimes.

Please.  Republicans would never impeach Obama for war crimes.  It would cut into their Unitary Republican Executive theory.  They’ll impeach him for something stupid and trivial, keyed to one of their hot button political issues.  Maybe they’ll do it over the Keystone XL.  Maybe they’ll cook something up over abortion.  Maybe over his plans for HSR or green energy.  Maybe over the sanctity of his marriage.

But war crimes?  ‘Eff that.  Completely ruins the GOP narrative.

Comment #21: Zifnab  on  01/30  at  01:37 PM

@Comment #10: Blue Jean on 01/30 at 12:21 PM

On the other hand, if the lemmings do chose to race over that suicide slope, then VP Biden’s chance at the White House will be immeasurably improved.

Inaccurate. If Obama were successfully impeached, then that would damage Democrats, regardless of what it did to his popularity with the public.

Comment #22: atheist  on  01/30  at  01:49 PM

I think these morons won’t be happy until there’s a Civil War prt deaux.  I know the southern yokels want that to happen so bad it gives a stiffy just thinking about it.

Comment #23: DontFearTheReaper  on  01/30  at  01:53 PM

@Comment #22: atheist at 1:49 PM

Inaccurate. If Obama were successfully impeached, then that would damage Democrats, regardless of what it did to his popularity with the public.

You would be right if say, the GOP behaved like the Democrats did during Watergate in the early ‘70s: go slowly, go fairly, make sure what you’re investigating is a “high crime”, make sure the public is with you and make sure you have the evidence before you vote.

However, I think it’s far more likely that the GOP will behave like the GOP did during Monicagate in ‘98; “Impeach! Impeach! Impeach! We have the slightest excuse to impeach? IMPEACH! IMPEACH! IMPEACH! Our base will LOVE it!  Oh, most of the public hates it?  They say no private citizen would be accused in something like this, let alone convicted?  Who CARES?! Twist arms, break every precedent in the book if you have to, just jam it through at the last minute!  Hanging the impeachment rap on a Democratic President is FAR more important—that’ll show the Dems what happens if you have the gall to run for President and win!”

No, VP Biden doesn’t exactly set me on fire, but I think he’ll have a clear field if he wants it in 2016—and he said that he does want it.  In any case, Biden’s a better bet than someone like say, Jeb Bush in 2016.

Comment #24: Blue Jean  on  01/30  at  02:09 PM

DontFearTheReaper- as far as they’re concerned, the first one never actually ended.

Comment #25: jeevmon  on  01/30  at  02:09 PM

Biden’s not the only potential candidate.  I’m rooting for Carcetti.

Comment #26: oldfeminist  on  01/30  at  02:15 PM

“I think these morons won’t be happy until there’s a Civil War prt deaux.  I know the southern yokels want that to happen so bad it gives a stiffy just thinking about it.”

While much of the cult of Rechwing Authoritarian Worshiping is concentrated in the “Bible Belt” (roughly similar to the states that were in the Confederacy), the fact is that they are spread all across the nation.  We don’t have a natural geographic division (Slavery States v. Abolitionist States) between the combatants like we did before the Civil War.

Hence, if we go to arms to defend our various political and social views it will be a lot more like the rise of the Nazis vs. the Communists in pre-war Germany, or the various warring Russian factions before the rise of the Soviet Union.  Highly unpleasant…

“DontFearTheReaper- as far as they’re concerned, the first one never actually ended.”

...yup…

Comment #27: MikeEss  on  01/30  at  02:19 PM

I think these morons won’t be happy until there’s a Civil War prt deaux.  I know the southern yokels want that to happen so bad it gives a stiffy just thinking about it.

Pro-Confederate Southerners picture it in their heads as an explosive, adrenaline-fueled action movie entitled Civil War II: Unfinished Business. And like all childish people, they think living in an action movie would be AWESOME.

Comment #28: Triplanetary  on  01/30  at  02:35 PM

If anything, I’m almost looking forward to seeing the look on Obama’s face when it finally, finally sinks in that, yes, no matter how much he caters to the Rethugs and the “independents,” no matter how diligently he bends over backwards to shine the GOP’s jackboots with his tongue, no matter how willingly he takes all their psychotic abuse with gentle, good humor and a depreciating chuckle, no matter how happily he carries out their agenda, no matter how openly and unashamedly he serves the 1%, no matter how transparent he is in being a servant to the banksters, no matter how many times he backhands the Democratic base, no matter how cringing and servile he behaves towards those who would be delighted to see him broken and humiliated (if not actually dead), no matter how eagerly he kisses Republican ass, licks Republican boot andf sucks Republcian cock, that despite all of this, they’re going to impeach him anyway.

Comment #29: John D.  on  01/30  at  02:52 PM

The phrase “Biden ‘16” isn’t something you want to hear without having time to prepare yourself.

Comment #30: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/30  at  02:55 PM

I’m not going to completely deny the premise of this post—I do think that impeachment certainly plays a role in certain conservative fantasies about Obama—but Grover Norquist, while powerful, is not really a serious Republican STRATEGIST but is rather the type of character you would get if Satan and Walter Mitty had a love child. He has his flights of fancy, and this is one of them.

Comment #31: Dilan Esper  on  01/30  at  03:14 PM

Clinton recently said that Rep. Bob Ingliss of Florida recently told him that Ingliss hated him when he was elected, and that he asked for a spot on the Judiciary Committee specifically so he could impeach him.  This was as soon as Clinton was elected.  The plan from the get-go was to find something, anything to impeach him for.

Comment #32: gretchen  on  01/30  at  03:16 PM

Elizabeth Warren ‘16, please.

Comment #33: NBarnes  on  01/30  at  03:32 PM

I’m less concerned with the possibility of 2014 impeachment (because nobody can predict a change in the composition of the Senate/House that far in advance) than with what Darrell Issa has planned for an election year as Chairmen of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. I think it’s likely we’re going to start seeing some trumped up charges and a shower of subpoenas any month now. The fake investigations might even steal the media spotlight from the possible future big bank investigations. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/09/07/darrell-issa-could-investigate-president-obama.html

In fact, I suspect that his forbearance is because he’s been waiting for when some BS about Solyndra, or whatever, could do the most political damage.

Comment #34: curiouscliche  on  01/30  at  03:42 PM

“This was as soon as Clinton was elected.  The plan from the get-go was to find something, anything to impeach him for.”

...but there was no “Vast Right-wing Conspiracy” out to trash Clinton, and anyone who thinks so is unhinged, right? 

And if the whole mechanism of government is turned toward impeaching Obama, that won’t be a vast right-wing conspiracy either, I’m sure. 

If Obama is re-elected, the right-wing media will immediately start gearing up for another round of Presidential Follies.  It’s an integral part of America’s bread-and-circuses-based domestic policy…

Comment #35: MikeEss  on  01/30  at  03:44 PM

#34, curiouscliche,

It’s unlikely Issa would have any dirt on Solyndra that he’d want to have fully investigated, as it was kinda sorta in his backyard and he was kinda sorta a bit involved in supporting the company. They’re going to have to find something else, but it’s unlikely to involve anything related to banking or anything similar. Why would they pursue banks when their candidate is Mr. Investment Portfolio Do-Right? Right now, they’re kicking themselves for destroying ACORN, since something of that sort would be handy to investigate for a very long time. Never mind that the welfare and housing scandal nonsense, as the current GOP obsession is purging the voter rolls. And that issue is one that the Obama Justice Department is hesitant to go head-to-head with the GOP governors over (as it is a big mover the spurs the idiot vote more than it is a boon for Democrats; sorry disenfranchised folk, but that’s the political reality.) Obama is well aware of what the Republicans are doing, how they’re getting away with it, and so forth. And he’s also aware that his supposed allies are willing to stay home unless he somehow stops all of that. If only he could do more, but those same OBetrayalists can’t get it in their heads that the Federal Court system is a little bit influenced by voting for Republican Senators and Presidents and not voting for Democratic Senators and Presidents in very similar ways. But GITMO didn’t close, so that doesn’t matter.

Comment #36: 3letterjon  on  01/30  at  04:01 PM

2 disparate points:

1.  Obama’s administration has been remarkably scandal-free.  I’m not necessarily a whole-hearted supporter, but I certainly give him kudos on this.

2.  Aside from 24-hour news channels needing something to say all of the time, and elected republications who pledged allegiance to Grover Norquist rather than the constitution, why does anyone give a hoot or a holler about Norquist, Rove, or other playas who think governing this country is a game?  Ye gods, I’m sick of them and their babble.

I’m beginning to believe our government/political system is broken.  I don’t see how it represents our populace.  And it certainly cants disproportionately in favor of the white and wealthy straight man.

Comment #37: blondie  on  01/30  at  04:14 PM

#37, blondie,

1. Agreed.

2. Giving a hoot or holler about those who think governing is a game is important. Why? Because those game-playing dolts influence the House of Representatives’ every action, an oversized portion of the Senate’s activities, and much of the news that goes out in the media that loves a good story much more than an accurate one. Ignoring that won’t make it go away. It has to be confronted.

Of course, it’s easier to declare Obama a failure than it is to try to understand just how much crap he has to work with. Those who say he should “stand up” to the GOP get style points for characterizing Obama as weak, but those who actually want as functioning a country as possible understand that some compromise sucks balls and choose instead to work to lessen the other side rather than “send a message” by staying home. That message has been received: you choose to be irrelevant to his continued success and he may as well reach toward the middle. His poll numbers show that’s working.

Comment #38: 3letterjon  on  01/30  at  04:28 PM

I’m trying to figure out why Norquist said this, because he obviously knew it would make the news.  It’s basically a lock that Chris Matthews will be fuming over it tonight.

Is Norquist trying to get Repubs to coalesce around the idea that the president is circumventing the Constitution with his executive orders and recess appointments?

Is he trying to fire the first big shot across Obama’s bow before November?  He’s an extremist, so I suspect he has not been satisfied with the intensity of Obama criticisms from the GOP - even though regular humans have been disgusted.

Then, there’s the third option: he’s a megalomaniacal nut who wanted to be on TV again.

Comment #39: tyler  on  01/30  at  04:42 PM

All they ever do is try to get more tax cuts for the wealthy and push anti-choice legislation. That’s not really a full time job, giving congressional Republicans lots of time to concoct ways to impeach the President.

Yep. The same is true for Republican state legislators. All they have to do is get the talking points from whatever think tank is handing them out, regurgitate them at the committee hearings, and vote for the tax cuts or deregulation bills written for them at the ALEC conference. Leaves them plenty of time to be on Facebook railing against how slutty girls are these days, as one Arizona Representative I know of has a habit of doing.

Comment #40: DonnaDiva  on  01/30  at  05:03 PM

Makes me wonder if the Republicans would have tried impeaching Carter if he’d won reelection.  I’m having trouble figuring out whether this is just something they’ve been itching to do since Nixon, or was it just all these overgrown children the GOP’s been sending to Washington the past 20 years who first decided impeachment was just a big toy for them to play with.

Comment #41: GSDavis  on  01/30  at  05:05 PM

Makes me wonder if the Republicans would have tried impeaching Carter if he’d won reelection.

It’s not the 80s anymore.  Republicans were still learning the game back then, and the media wasn’t so completely in the bag for them, although they were working their way to it.  Impeaching Carter would have been like punching a senior citizen.  People didn’t see him as particularly bad-ass, like Fighting Action Ronald RayGun.  But they didn’t hate him, like they did Clinton and Obama years after.

The Ford/Carter election was just a race between two really nice guys with different views on politics.  The Carter/Reagan fight was over who was going to re-awesome America.  But then Democrats started taking the gloves off against Reagan for being a slimy little crock, and the GOP pushed back, and then we got Mondale and then Dukakis and Republicans decided to go in for the kill.  And things haven’t been the same since.

Comment #42: Zifnab  on  01/30  at  05:25 PM

“Makes me wonder if the Republicans would have tried impeaching Carter if he’d won reelection.”

There was still such a thing as “Moderate Republicans” in 1976 when Cater was elected.  It wasn’t until the “Reagan Revolution” in 1980 that the crazies (many of them Republican due to the CRA and the Southern Strategy) really came out of the woodwork and began to take center stage.  If Mondale had won, if Dukakis had won, they might have been the first.  As it was, Clinton was the test case for a “legal” coup d’état based on charges that amounted to adultery (which many of Clinton’s prosecutors were guilty of themselves).  Since he went down - all too easily - they’ve been itching to do it again.

Given the crazies that make of the Republican base, the insane wingnut politicians who want their votes, and the Conservative crazies on the Supreme Court, what’s the down side? 

With the right House, and the right Senate (either Republican-controlled, or with enough Leiberman-style sellouts and sycophants) it’s Full Steam Ahead!!!...

Comment #43: MikeEss  on  01/30  at  05:37 PM

I’m beginning to believe our government/political system is broken.  I don’t see how it represents our populace.

It doesn’t represent the populace, but I believe it does represent those who actually vote.  Racist, middle class, middle-age white people vote in greater numbers than minority, poor, young people.

Comment #44: keshmeshi  on  01/30  at  06:04 PM

If Obama gets reelected, big deal, it’s not like he’s going to change the status quo in any substantial way.

In fact, Obama has expanded foreign special forces deployments, forming the kernels of what could eventually blow up into proxy wars with the world’s other superpowers.

Comment #45: chernobog  on  01/30  at  08:37 PM

Personally, I’m concerned that the military isn’t big enough yet.

We need autonomous Panzers and the like to complement all the Terminator aircraft that are being tested or even put into operation, like the Fire Scout and Pegasus. I understand that land navigation is a more complex task than naval or aerial navigation but with all the knowledge gleaned over the past decades about complex adaptive systems and some good old American can-do spirit, I know it can be done, and think of what CMU’s Crusher would be like outfitted with a CANNON:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=562yb0wifPo

More novel incendiaries, too: I thought about this while I was getting rid of some elementary stats texts I have (well past the point of needing them by now) by tossing them on the fireplace. As I shuffled the pages around with the shovel to aerate them, they flamed intensely just before turning to ash and I thought, man, wouldn’t it be cool to reduce a great big crowd of people to a pile of blackened pork rinds in one go?

Oh and finally, better incapacitating agents. I’m no chemist but I’d give odds there’s an anticholinergic waiting to be found out there that will give its victims psychological scars so deep, the survivors will envy the dead.

How would you improve the military?

Comment #46: chernobog  on  01/30  at  08:38 PM

Re:  Comment #45: chernobog on 01/30 at 08:37 PM

The status quo?  Because to you, you’re okay with the Citizen’s United decision, no ACA, a hundred thousand troops deployed?

What kind of selfish asshole do you have to be to call all these things that have changed despite a locked up congress ‘status quo’?

Comment #47: Crissa  on  01/30  at  09:32 PM

The status quo?

Yes, the status quo as in America under the leadership of Obama continuing to bring the mailed fist of America’s military might down on everyone else and, at the current rate, maybe even instigating a cybernetic revolt à la Skynet.

Frankly I don’t care who wins the presidential election this year because the outcome is bound to be awesome.

Comment #48: chernobog  on  01/30  at  09:45 PM

Check this out:

<a >Ultimate Weapons- X-47B</a>

Pretty soon it’s gonna be like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9YU0hQEZ5M#t=1m17s

The future is going to be BOMB ASS.

Comment #49: chernobog  on  01/30  at  10:34 PM

Woops:

Ultimate Weapons- X-47B

Hell yeah!

Comment #50: chernobog  on  01/30  at  10:35 PM

On the other hand, if the lemmings do chose to race over that suicide slope, then VP Biden’s chance at the White House will be immeasurably improved.

Unless Biden decides to spend his campaign running away from Obama’s record, like Gore ran away from Clinton…  And Biden nominates the Senate’s scourge as his VP…

Comment #51: James  on  01/30  at  10:49 PM

What Murray did was specifically take the fast food and popular entertainment totems that are shared widely across all classes (eg, football, Chipotle, many movies, and McDonalds) and eliminate those from consideration as being things that would place you “outside the bubble” if you were familiar with. That was done to achieve the desired result—if you take the specific parts of mass culture and experience that both groups share and eliminate them and only ask about the parts of mass culture that are less common across both groups, then you get a “clear” division of both groups. Surprise!

Comment #52: Tyro  on  01/30  at  10:50 PM

Crap, wrong thread. Sorry

Comment #53: Tyro  on  01/30  at  10:51 PM

MikeEss:

The funny thing about the VRWC meme is that it’s actually ridiculously easy to define, even if the term is overblown. It was essentially the confluence of wingnuts, funded mostly by Richard Mellon Scaife and neocon interests and urged on by people like Norquist, Limbaugh, and Gingrich, that was out to get Clinton by any means possible. I mean, you can point to people who were involved, trace their involvement, and even see people like David Brock who were up to their necks in it and turned on it. It’s just that the phrasing makes people cringe and want to write it off as a rumor.

Comment #54: BrianX  on  01/30  at  11:11 PM

Why do you care whether or not Obama gets impeached? There won’t be any real difference one way or the other.

Comment #55: chernobog  on  01/30  at  11:13 PM

chernobog:

What, you want that three-ring circus making a mockery of our entire country again? It accomplished nothing against Clinton (after a multiyear investigation that turned up everything but evidence of an impeachable crime) and will do even less with Obama, especially given how the only “scandals” anyone’s come up with evaporate immediately. Even the media mostly ignores the birthers.

Comment #56: BrianX  on  01/30  at  11:20 PM

What, you want that three-ring circus making a mockery of our entire country again?

Yeah, why not? The rest of the world won’t be laughing when autonomous Terminator hunter-killers like the X-47B are sent into the combat zone.

Comment #57: chernobog  on  01/30  at  11:30 PM

Psht. Terminators are yesterday’s tech. Think smaller, faster, cheaper. Think suicide-bombing Roombas.

Comment #58: BrianX  on  01/30  at  11:32 PM

But UCAVs are inexpensive.

Comment #59: chernobog  on  01/30  at  11:46 PM

The purpose of the Clinton impeachment was not to overturn Clinton’s re-election but rather to so discredit the process of impeachment that future prosecutions of truly impeachable offenses (say, lying to the nation to justify a war) would be dismissed as mere partisanship.

Comment #60: Olgierd  on  01/31  at  12:36 AM

Olglerd:

I doubt it. I think that would just be considered a side-effect.

Comment #61: BrianX  on  01/31  at  12:41 AM

#33 - NO NO NO.  Warren has said NOTHING about any issue except finance, plus she worked as a consultant for Travelers’ Insurance to help them screw over mesothelioma victims in a class action suit.  Add in that she doesn’t seem to think that she and her husband are rich, and her support of school vouchers, and we have a candidate who isn’t nearly as liberal (or as good for Americans) as she seems.  I’m a registered Democrat and I live in Massachusetts, and I am seriously contemplating writing in a candidate rather than vote for either Warren or the odious Scott Brown.  No way I’d support her for President.

Comment #62: Ellid  on  01/31  at  08:46 AM

Obama doesn’t “stand up” to Republicans because he agrees with them. 

Which makes the whole “he’s a secret awesome President but the GOP makes him fail” meme just really sad.

Comment #63: Punditus Maximus  on  01/31  at  11:51 AM

I dunno, Olgierd’s got a good point there. Bush is certainly guilty of far more impeachable offenses than Clinton was, but one reason nobody wanted to even talk about it is because, after Clinton’s impeachment, the whole notion of initiating impeachment proceedings just seemed embarrassing. It’s like when you and your friend mutually masturbate each other

Comment #64: Triplanetary  on  01/31  at  11:53 AM

Wow that comment was not at all what I intended. The mutual masturbation thing was a filler that I fully intended to delete. But then I accidentally hit tab and enter in quick succession…

...

...

...

Anyway, the other reason Democrats didn’t want to impeach Bush is because they were as duped by his lies as anyone. As mentioned upthread.

*cough*

Comment #65: Triplanetary  on  01/31  at  11:54 AM

Thanks for the reach-around, Tri.

Comment #66: Olgierd  on  01/31  at  11:35 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages


Please login or register to post comments.