Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Impeachment Talk

111 Comments

It’s mostly coming from Democrats. This is a potentially dangerous game, depending on how much starts to come out with various scandals and as the foreign situation continues to deteriorate. I’ve always said that it would be politically stupid to impeach before the election, but I would not rule out the possibility of it being a good campaign issue for the Republicans this fall.

But I remain frustrated that no one seems to be polling this question:

If the Republicans ran on a platform of impeaching and removing Barack Obama and Joe Biden and replacing them with the Speaker of the House and then a new vice president of his choosing, would you be:

a) More likely to vote Republican
b) Less likely to vote Republican
c) Not sure
d) Depends on who the Speaker of the House is

Wouldn’t cost much to add the question to a poll.

111 thoughts on “Impeachment Talk”

  1. This represents one of the tactics used by the democrat politicians — to get in front of their own negative behavior. They announce the issue as an accusation from their rabidly irrational foes, trivialize, and conclude irrelevancy of the issue in one news dump. They treat this like an inoculation of the media, as they can follow up with “we’ve already dealt with this” mantra when the issue is raised later by others.

    What worries me is: Does team Obama really think they are acting so outside of the rule of law that they need to strategize and counter impeachment? Really?

    We have heard a lot from Team Obama how he is planning to “use his pen” doing executive actions. This has always represented stretching outside the normal 3 branch version of the rule of law. However, this is far from unprecedented, and not something that would in and of itself rise to anything close to levels calling for impeachment.

    Are they planning to do things that they think would cause a large slice of america consider impeachment? If so, what actions?

    1. ” Does team Obama really think they are acting so outside of the rule of law that they need to strategize and counter impeachment? Really?”

      Yes. Their only hope is to run out the clock with coverups and stonewalls.

  2. I don’t think you’ll see such a poll, it’s too dangerous for both factions of our ruling class. Since I’m all in on voting against the Democratic Party, it wouldn’t make me any more likely to vote GOP.

  3. I did see some guys running a booth in front of our post office last week, collecting petition signatures to impeach the president. I did not bother with them since A) that is not really how you impeach presidents and B) putting a Hitler mustache on any president’s picture seems to lack class.

    I normally counsel against impeachments and recalls. The likelihood of success is low and the process can take so long as to be little advantage versus just voting the guy out. All the manpower spent on such efforts is usually better spent on the tools of practical politics: party building, precinct organizing, and intelligent campaigning. (Yes, I know, but some people actually have run intelligent campaigns.)

    Also, I think it would be difficult to impeach both the president and vice president. I mean, how do you impeach a vice president for wrong-doing when he is pretty much prevented from doing anything in the first place? Did he preside over the senate incorrectly? Sure, he makes stupid comments almost religiously, but if that is a crime, then lots of us are in trouble. I think you would have to impeach and remove one president, then wait for the new president to give you cause to remove him, all the while preventing his choice as the new vice president from being confirmed. Good luck.

    Besides, the issue is not the president – not really. He is just a symptom. The real issue is a congress that refuses to do its job or defend its turf. If the US Congress ever decided to follow constitutional principles and force the president to obey it, they would find that they actually have the power after all. Then the impeachment threat might actually have some teeth. But congress likes having the Executive Branch to blame for everything, because they get to avoid all responsibility for anything and coast to reelection, no matter which party is in charge of what, so don’t expect any change in this anytime soon.

    1. Impeachment is a political act, not a legal one. Simply being Barack Obama’s VP and supporting him in his lies and chicanery could be considered a high crime and misdemeanor, if the Senate agreed.

    2. ” Besides, the issue is not the president – not really. He is just a symptom. The real issue is a congress that refuses to do its job or defend its turf. ”

      The real issue is the Democrat party, which operates as a criminal organization from the militant activists, the donors, government workers, to Democrat politicians at all levels of government. The last five years have shown that corruption and illegal abuses of power are not restricted to Obama but rather are a party wide problem.

      1. The real issue is that more than half the population is OK with that, as evidenced by the 2012 election. Ah well, America, you had a good run til you threw it all away.

    3. If the US Congress ever decided to follow constitutional principles and force the president to obey it, they would find that they actually have the power after all.

      I think I agree, but not exactly sure if this is what you meant, John. To me, this is what Ted Cruz, et al, where trying to push last October. The President still delayed the mandate that the GOP requested be changed in law. The Press should have howled when Obama changed it by fiat, after he shutdown the government to block it legislatively.

      Instead, we got Elizabeth Warren trying to spin the shutdown as now being about birth control, and no one ridicules her foolishness. So to get the truth out, Boehner creates a crazy lawsuit. It’s dumb, yet it is at the heart of who has the power. In the end, Wodun is right, the real issue is the Democratic Party. The House has no power on its own to control the President, and the Senate majority doesn’t care if a Democrat President usurps power. I do think Boehner’s lawsuit is about standing and from the perspective, it will be interesting.

  4. Impeachment be racist.

    Actually, if successful, it would probably be a stunning blow against the Hive. So as someone who values liberty, I’d be for it.

  5. An effort to impeach Obama between now and the mid-terms would be a potential disaster for the GOP and probably what the Democrats are desperately hoping for. The last thing we need is to stir up the Obama base in what is looking to be an epic wave election against Democrat policies. I would prefer let their policies come home to roost without the distracting media circus that would surround an impeachment effort.

    Besides, without the votes in the Senate for conviction, what is point of impeachment in the House? Also, given the Republican reluctance to fight the Obama on the political stage, many of them don’t deserve to hold office either. I’m tired of the politics of the pot calling the kettle black. If the GOP would grow a pair impeachment wouldn’t be necessary.

    1. He doesn’t seem very scary at all. What scares you about Boehner? Curious to see what kind of nut job alternate reality you have banging around in your noggin.

      Biden isn’t even scary, at this point. Could he possibly do worse than Obama? Unlikely. There is such a short time left, Biden actually looks like a good alternative to a lame duck Obama who will lash out in destructive ways to assert he is still relevant.

      Think about it. Biden becomes President and every Tuesday is national ice cream day and Fridays are ride your pony to work day. Biden would mandate hair plugs and teeth whitening be covered under Obamacare. Biden would certainly be a terrible President but not the threat to our country and the world that Obama has become.

      1. Like how Gerald Ford was portrayed, we’d need a comic relief President after the long national nightmare was over. Except in this case we’d really have a clown in office.

        1. You guys are taking Moby Matula too seriously. He basically posts the contrary of whatever he sees as the predominant train of thought here (which is libertarian, while he is some kind of State-shtupper masking as an “concerned” independent or Republican who somehow always follows the Hive’s party line).

          1. What you Rand followers claim as Libertarian beliefs would have Ayn Rand is spinning in her grave.

            You are against immigration, hiding behind the fig leaf of it being “illegal” immigration even when such restrictions on freedom and free markets goes against the core of libertarian beliefs. Remember, the foundation of libertarian beliefs is to fight restrictions on freedom, not encourage.

            You support opportunistic hypocritical political candidates who say the buzz words of liberty and freedom then do their best once elected to restrict both (limit voting rights, limit marriage rights, undermine the freedom of schools, take away local governance…) while doing nothing that would actually increase freedom.

            For example, where is an amendment replacing the income tax with a sale tax, something that would make folks aware daily of the cost of government? Instead Rand posts about the hearings on the IRS denying tax exemption for “Tea Party” groups. The best way to solve the problem is not investigating it, but eliminated the need for exemptions, and most of the need for the IRS, by replacing an income tax with a sales tax. But where are the house hearings on such an amendment?

            You praise the destruction of a great American political party, by opportunistic hypocritical political candidates without the courage or confidence in their beliefs to start a new political party, thereby weakening it in elections.

            In short, you do everything possible to make it easy for Democratic candidates like President Obama to be elected by supporting opposition candidates that sound like tin foil hat wearing conspiracy nuts. But then that gives Rand something to post on his blog 🙂

            BTW the latest actions of one of the liberty loving politicians Rand followers here support.

            http://conservativetribune.com/national-guard-arrest-power/

            Texas National Guard Could Get “Arrest” Power at Border

            [[[Recently, Governor Rick Perry of Texas announced that he would send approximately 1,000 troopers from the Texas National Guard to support and assist border security efforts already underway.

            Now new information from WND indicates that those troops may bring with them an unexpected authority to arrest and apprehend people suspected of being in the country illegally. Because past deployments of the National Guard to the border have always come through the federal government, that power was denied to the troops.

            Now, however, because they are being deployed by the governor, Perry has the prerogative to grant them the ability to make arrests, according to the report.]]]

            Imagine, someone who is “libertarian” proposing the military should have the right to arrest individuals on American soil. And folks here wanted him to be President?

            Of course if this was President Obama proposing then idea then Rand would be screaming about it, but since it Gov. Perry it is ignored by Rand.

            And then you wonder why I have so little respect for you so called libertarians… You aren’t really, you are not even real Republicans with that set of beliefs. But then what could be expected given Rand himself voted against President Reagen twice, while voting for President Carter and Ralph Nader.

          2. “You are against immigration, hiding behind the fig leaf of it being “illegal” immigration ”

            Do you really think that? Who is against legal immigration?

            There are many commenters here who are not in favor of open borders and give their personal stories of family members who immigrated legally.

            You yourself want open borders in the USA but then say other countries can’t exist with more than one ethnic or religious group. I disagree with you on both but that doesn’t mean I am not in favor of legal immigration, something neither party has bothered to address.

            “he best way to solve the problem is not investigating it, but eliminated the need for exemptions, and most of the need for the IRS, by replacing an income tax with a sales tax.”

            That does nothing to hold the people accountable who are responsible for the persecution of political dissidents. It needs to be investigated and exposed as the party wide and government agency wide problem that it is. And the behavior needs to be ended not just by law but by making it clear that the ethos that leads to this type of corrupt behavior will not be tolerated.

            Laws only do so much. Criminals will always break the law. What is needed is a populace with the integrity not to act unethically, especially our elected officials. It is hard to maintain when one party views tearing down the foundations of our society’s moral and ethical standards as one of their greatest goals (deconstruction & post modern ideology).

          3. “You are against immigration, hiding behind the fig leaf of it being “illegal” immigration even when such restrictions on freedom and free markets goes against the core of libertarian beliefs.”

            You are certifiable.

          4. Wodun,

            Yes, the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party has been doing its best to tear down the nation 🙂

          5. So tell me Gregg, would you have had Alisa Rosenbaum, an illegal immigrate, made illegal because Unions in the 1920’s wanted to stop the flow of immigrates so they would have an easier job to organize industry (the free flow of immigrate labor made it impossible), deported as an Illegal immigrate?

          6. “So tell me Gregg, would you have had Alisa Rosenbaum, an illegal immigrate, made illegal because Unions in the 1920′s wanted to stop the flow of immigrates so they would have an easier job to organize industry (the free flow of immigrate labor made it impossible), deported as an Illegal immigrate?”

            That sentence doesn’t come close to parsing. First off what is an “immigrate”? An immigrant who is an ingrate.

            But more seriously, if she was an illegal [immigrant], then how can she be made an illegal [immigrant]?

            Ill try to make it very simple for you so that it cuts through the whiskey-pot-haze:

            Illegal immigration should be stopped until it’s down to the noise level (can’t really get to 100% but you can get close). If the law says that a newly arrived person is classified as illegal, that person should have been deported.

            Businesses of all sizes who hire illegal immigrants nowingly should be severely punished.

            IS that clear enough for you?

          7. Wodun,

            Are you saying you oppose the type of immigration that force teenagers to leave their families, then cross over deserts, river, or high walls and if they survive; they get put into cells until they can be shipped to somewhere in the interior and left at a bus station to survive?

            Do you, Wodun, have an issue with immigration where a person walks to a border crossing, like a bridge or roadside booth, gives the people there an id and says I have a reason to believe I can safely live and work in the United States without assistance from the government?

          8. “Do you, Wodun, have an issue with immigration where a person walks to a border crossing, like a bridge or roadside booth, gives the people there an id and says I have a reason to believe I can safely live and work in the United States without assistance from the government?”

            I like this one but the determination should be made long before someone gets to the border.

    2. And probably just as big a show stopper to the Tea Party given how he is planning a crackdown on them

      Almost makes me want to do a deeper dive into psychology just to get a handle on what compels you to insert non-linear comments about the Tea Party into so many of your posts. They clearly push your buttons.

      1. If you understood better the beliefs and work of Ayn Rand you would understand. FYI

        http://ari.aynrand.org/faq

        [[[In print in 1972 Rand issued this warning to individuals interested in defending capitalism:

        Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to “do something.” By “ideological” (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, that subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the “libertarian” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. [“What Can One Do?” The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. 1, No. 7] ]]]

        “movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals.” Yep, the best description of the Tea Party I found 🙂

        1. Vaguely generalized, undefined, usually contradictory goals? The Tea Party?

          The goal is adherence to the Constitution. Is that too general, undefined, or contradictory for you?

          1. Rand,

            So first you reject Ronald Reagan, now Ayn Rand…. Guess libertarians really are anarchists as Ayn Rand stated 🙂

  7. Impeachment is stupid. Not only, even if successful would bring us crazy uncle Joe Biden, it would rip the country apart as the charges of racism fly.

    Much better to push for a 2/3rds majority of republicans in the House and possibly the Senate. Then Obama can just go golf for two years.

    1. Charges of racism flow like water anyway so that wad has already been shot. Perhaps if they hadn’t overplayed the race card so many times, charges of racism might have some meaning.

  8. Could the Democrats be behind some of this impeachment talk?

    Starting an impeachment now…would result in the Democrats keeping the senate in November. In other words, it would hurt the Republicans far more than the democrats, and boost Obama. Just what the doctor ordered for his sagging poll numbers and general impression of fecklessness and incompetence…gold plated distraction.

    Please, folks, don’t do impeachment – it will backfire.

    1. I think Democrats are behind most of the impeachment talks. It is a double bonus for them. First, it rings of Clinton, which they think was helpful. Second, a few of them wish Obama was impeached, because he’s taking their Congressional power as well and screwing their states.

        1. I guess with DN-guy gone, Moby decided to audition to gain back the role of blog idiot. Well ok, I’ll join the bandwagon. Moby Matula for Blog Idiot!

          2. Don’t worry Moby, according to you, I live in my parents basement. I’m sure blog idiot is a step up from teaching marketing in rural Nevada. Someone has to do it, but I understand your reluctance. Rand won’t give you subsidies, and we know how you love taking subsidies. 🙂

  9. As Napoleon is reputed to have said, never interfere with your enemy while he’s in the process of destroying himself. The R’s would be mad to hand that life preserver to the D’s now.

  10. By the time of the next presidential election, there will be 20 million new registered Democrats, brought across the border from Mexico, distributed into swing states, and given amnesty, citizenship, and voter ID if necessary. No Republican will ever be elected to the presidency again. And there’s nothing you can do about it, because if you try, Comrades Jim, Gerrib, and I will scream racism at you.

  11. A President often pushes the envelope of Executive power; but now, Congress isn’t pushing back, so we’re out of balance. Happily, citizens (well, “voters,” these days) have a chance to fire most of Congress every 2 years.

    I don’t pretend that a red landslide in November will really change what’s actually happening, because you need 2/3 of the Senate to override a veto. But Lord willing, we’ll see a lot of legislation against Executive overreach, and Obama will be forced to veto every damned piece. And who knows, a few of the Senate Dems vulnerable in ’16 might turn on him occasionally over some of the low-lying fruit.

    No impeachment talk, no matter how valid it may seem, because we can’t get a conviction in the Senate, and that would cause a rallying around Obama; no government shutdowns either. But use the courts to help slow as many of the more outrageous Executive branch actions as possible. Take targeted punitive actions as often as possible; zero out IRS travel and bonuses–not many people would complain about that, and I can’t imagine the donkeys being able to threaten a government shutdown over IRS bonuses and trips. Offer positive alternatives as possible, be loud about them.

    If the Republicans can stay focused and not be too stupid, they can gum up the works for Obama for two years and be in good shape for 2016. I don’t know who their Presidential candidate will be, but he/she had better be palatable to both the blue bloods and the Tea Party folks, because the opponent will be either Hillary! or Fauxahontas. You can’t afford a single mistake–or stay-at-home Republican voter–against either of them.

    1. You talk like you think you have fair elections. Interesting. Meanwhile, there’s 20 million new Democrat votes streaming across your southern border. Not that republican votes would count in some jurisdictions, anyhow, since they’ve got pre-marked ballots stuffed in boxes already, just waiting to be “discovered” n the trunk of someone’s car when they count the votes. You know the jurisdictions I’m talking about, the ones with 140% voter turnout, and 100% voting for Democrat candidates?

      The fix is in. You’ll know it when you see the results this November.

      1. Oh, I’m no fool. I figure there’s a good 10% of fraud in the system already, even before the illegals streaming in start to vote. But 2016 really is the Rubicon. If another Dem gets in, we’re finished within 10 years. I’d like to push that back a bit and give my kids time to live a little before either the Cloward-Piven collapse or the second Civil War.

        We need voter ID. And if it takes Congress passing it, the President ignoring them, and the case going to the Supremes, then so be it. How about a class-action lawsuit? Surely the citizens have standing to sue over their rights?

        1. We need voter ID

          What for? Do you really think there are thousands of people impersonating registered voters at the polls, without anyone noticing?

          2. Don’t assume that because the Democrat party media does not report on Democrat voter fraud that it doesn’t happen.

            http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2014/03/11/poll-worker-who-said-she-voted-multiple-times-for-obama-for-family-members-released-early-from-prison/

            http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/03/19/fraud-local-nbc-investigation-discovers-dozens-of-illegal-voters-in-florida-n1811547

            http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/04/02/massive-voter-fraud-discovered-in-north-carolinas-2012-election/

            The examples of voter fraud are everywhere.

          3. “Do you really think there are thousands of people impersonating registered voters at the polls, without anyone noticing?”

            Do you really think?

            Or do you every really read the news widely and carefully?

          4. Wodun, you’re making my point. You posted three links to stories about voter fraud, but none of them involved impersonating a registered voter at the polls, and so none of them would be affected by a voter ID law. The first one involved a woman sending in absentee ballots for her relatives; voter ID does nothing to stop that. The second story is about non-citizens registering to vote; voter ID does nothing to stop that. The third story is about people registering to vote and voting in multiple states; voter ID does nothing to stop that.

            Show me some evidence that thousands of people are impersonating others at the polls.

          5. do you every really read the news widely and carefully?

            I did read that a national investigation in 2012 turned up a grand total of 10 cases of voter impersonation fraud in the previous 12 years. Stuff like this:

            One of the instances of voter impersonation fraud occurred in Londonderry, N.H., in 2004 when 17-year-old Mark Lacasse used his father’s name to vote for George W. Bush in the Republican presidential primary.

            Four of the ten cases were people voting on behalf of their spouses. Obviously there were no cases of voter impersonation actually making a difference in an election.

            By contrast, there were thousands of cases of absentee voter fraud and voter registration fraud — crimes that voter ID laws do nothing to address.

            I also read earlier this year that a Wisconsin judge could not find any evidence of impersonation fraud in that state:

            The evidence at trial established that virtually no voter impersonation occurs in Wisconsin. The defendants could not point to a single instance of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin at any time in the recent past.

            The only evidence even relating to voter impersonation that the defendants introduced was the testimony of Bruce Landgraf, an Assistant District Attorney in Milwaukee County. Landgraf testified that in “major elections,” by which he means gubernatorial and presidential elections, his office is asked to investigate about 10 or 12 cases in which a voter arrives at the polls and is told by the poll worker that he or she has already cast a ballot.

            However, his office determined that the vast majority of these cases—approximately 10 each election—have innocent explanations, such as a poll worker’s placing an indication that a person has voted next to the wrong name in the poll book.

            If enough people were impersonating others to actually affect the results you’d have hundreds or thousands of cases of attempted double-voting, and they wouldn’t have innocent explanations.

            Voter ID laws have no effect on the integrity of elections because the only form of vote fraud they address is virtually non-existent.

          6. That was, frankly, stupid. Of course we need voter ID. Because there really are thousands of people impersonating registered voters.

          7. Because there really are thousands of people impersonating registered voters.

            Is this just a gut feeling, or do you have actual evidence?

          8. Jim, what I want is for every citizen, every registered voter, to be able to vote ONCE. Not “once in every precinct,” not “once in every state in which they live or own property,” not “once for every old or dead person they know,” but ONCE. Obviously, voter ID is a necessary condition for this. AFAIK, state-issued registration cards are free; they should be if they aren’t. But if you can’t cash a check without ID, if you can’t drive without ID, if you can’t buy Sudafed without ID, if you can’t get into a Barack Obama speech without ID, if Coloradans can’t buy their weed without ID, then you shouldn’t be able to vote without ID either.

            Absentee voting is rife with the potential for fraud. If your response indicates that you’d like to reform absentee voting, I’m with you on that one. Personally, I’d be all behind a national businesses-closed holiday to assist working voters. But vote-by-mail and absentee voting is a nasty mess. It should be hard to get an absentee ballot–how about needing to show an airplane ticket or something? Getting an absentee ballot should be like getting out of jury duty, that hard. Why, even Eric Holder’s vote could have been effectively stolen via absentee ballot fraud, as O’Keefe demonstrated in one of his videos. Much as I disagree with who Holder would vote for, his vote belongs to him, not someone pretending to be him.

          9. “I did read that a national investigation in 2012 turned up a grand total of 10 cases of voter impersonation fraud in the previous 12 years.”

            That’s what I mean by reading widely. A Wisconsin judge? Like the ones who tried to outst Walker.

            No Jim you answerewd my question: you do not read widely and carefully.

            And so therefore you are ignorant of the facts. A common condition for liberals.

          10. what I want is for every citizen, every registered voter, to be able to vote ONCE. Not “once in every precinct,” not “once in every state in which they live or own property,” not “once for every old or dead person they know,” but ONCE.

            Voter ID doesn’t address those issues. You can hop from precinct to precinct with your ID, or request absentee ballots from multiple precincts and states — voter ID won’t stop you. Dead people shouldn’t be on the voting rolls — you don’t need voter ID to fix that. Impersonating an old person is pretty risky — old people are the most reliable voters, and the ballot clerk doesn’t need voter ID to tell that someone who looks 20 isn’t the 80 year old listed in the rolls.

            And while you can want whatever you like (for myself, I want every eligible voter to vote…), what you actually need is for the results of the election to not be changed by people showing up at the polls pretending to be someone else. And the good news is: you already have that.

          11. And so therefore you are ignorant of the facts.

            Go ahead and share some of those facts. What have you read that shows that voter impersonation is widespread?

          12. Gee, why do you suppose the Democrats are trying so hard to erase the border? Every Mexican or Guatemalan citizen who illegally votes in US elections offsets the Republican vote of an actual American. Fool.

          13. “Go ahead and share some of those facts. What have you read that shows that voter impersonation is widespread?”

            Why? It’s been done many times for you int he pat and every time you s=chose to ignore it so why bother? in addition you ought to learn to do your own research. Countless examples of voter fraud – registration and multiple voting and voting for dead people etc. exist if you will only take the time to read them when they are presented and then strive to engage a synapse to remember them. And additionally do your own research.

            See trouble with people who shut their brains off in order to follow some cult leader is that once they think they’ve gotten their argument to a point, they stop thinking.

            For example, you say that voter ID’s would not help in illegal registration but like some political paramecium you fail to think of the next step.

            We can’t constantly do your work for you Jim. Recall that over and over some of us say we can cut a half a trillion from the Federal budget just like *snap* that and you repeatedly ask how. We repeatedly make the list for you which you probably never read and the same thing happens over and over: next time we say the budget can be cut, you ask how.

            You’re not worth the time. A worthy debating partner does thorough research.

            In addition, we cotton on to your distraction techniques – like this one..sending the discussion down a voter Id rathole when the topic is impeachment.

            We reject that game.

          14. “You posted three links to stories about voter fraud, but none of them involved impersonating a registered voter at the polls,”

            Jim it’s hard to tell if you are really dense or just aren’t trying.

            If a woman votes multiple times for a family member, that’s voter fraud. A voter id card requirement would have prevented her from doing that. Is that REALLY so hard to figure out?

          15. For example, you say that voter ID’s would not help in illegal registration but like some political paramecium you fail to think of the next step.

            There are already id requirements for voter registration. You think requiring ID at voting time is going to stop fraud, when requiring it at registration time doesn’t?

            If a woman votes multiple times for a family member, that’s voter fraud. A voter id card requirement would have prevented her from doing that.

            She voted absentee. A voter id requirement would do nothing to stop her.

            As it happens, she was a poll worker. She’s the one who’d be enforcing your voter id requirement. A voter id law doesn’t even stop voter impersonation if the poll worker is the one committing vote fraud.

  12. I think this is more of the FUD that gets peddled to the low information voter strategy. A similar thing happened with the Draft (ie, Selective Service) during the last decade. The only people advocating it were Democrats looking to scare college students.

    But having said that, I will not rule out impeachment and conviction for Obama. Realistically, he’ll have to do a lot worse than he has in order to get impeached. But it would be foolish to rule out one of the final constraints on presidential behavior just because some presidential allies are trying to discredit its use.

  13. Show me some evidence that thousands of people are impersonating others at the polls.

    And there will be no fraud for Obamacare, either. Sheesh.

  14. Wodun, you’re making my point…The second story is about non-citizens registering to vote; voter ID does nothing to stop that.
    Yes it does. Registration is part of the process.

    The third story is about people registering to vote and voting in multiple states; voter ID does nothing to stop that.

    Yes it does. How can you not see that? Are you blind? Is this a new trick? Just deny the evidence you are shown?

  15. Yes it does. Registration is part of the process.

    No, it doesn’t. Voter ID laws are about proving that you are who you say you are when you show up at the polls, they have nothing to do with registration. Voter registration has its own id requirements.

    Yes it does. How can you not see that? Are you blind?

    No, it doesn’t. The linked article talked about cases where the same person (same first name, last name, date of birth, last four digits of SSN) was registered to vote in multiple states, and cast ballots in multiple states. Voter ID laws don’t stop you from registering in two states, and voting in both — you just show your ID in both places. The problem isn’t that you’re pretending to be someone else, it’s that you’re voting twice as yourself. The solution isn’t voter ID laws, it’s purging voter rolls of voters who’ve registered to vote elsewhere.

    There’s no evidence that voter impersonation is a big problem.

      1. That wasn’t voter impersonation, those felons all voted as themselves. The issue was that they needed to file a form in order to be eligible to vote again, and they hadn’t done so.

        Again: where’s the evidence that in-person voter impersonation is an actual problem? If it’s a big enough problem to justify checking ids for 150 million legitimate, law-abiding voters, it shouldn’t be this hard to find the evidence.

        1. Voter ID is a trivial requirement for what you view as a trivial problem so what’s the big deal?

          1. It isn’t a trivial requirement. There millions of legitimate registered voters who do not have valid photo id. The total effort it would take for all of them to get photo ID is anything but trivial. And Voter ID requirements slow down voting, at a time when long lines at the polls are a widespread problem. When my town had a special election last year, and had to check photo id for the first time (due to a change in state laws), we had to have a dedicated person to deal with photo id issues (e.g. people who forgot their id and had to fill out an affidavit). Multiply that by every polling place across that country.

            But even if it was a trivial requirement, it’d be overkill, since the problem it addresses — people changing election results by impersonating others at the polls — does not appear to exist.

    2. So Jim, given your comments so far, can we safely say you recognize the need to purge voter rolls, and also the need for absentee ballot reform? That’s progress! Good for you!

      1. I’m all for getting ineligible voters off the rolls, as long as you don’t remove eligible voters as well. And I’m all for absentee ballot reform, again assuming there are ways to reduce fraud without also blocking legitimate votes. Both of those topics deserver much more attention and support than voter ID.

        1. If purging voter rolls and absentee ballot reform ever pops up as a topic, I predict you will say it isn’t a problem worth dealing with and any efforts to reform the system to prevent fraud are really thinly veiled efforts to prevent X group from voting.

  16. So tell me Gregg, would you have had Alisa Rosenbaum, an illegal immigrate, made illegal because Unions in the 1920′s wanted to stop the flow of immigrates so they would have an easier job to organize industry (the free flow of immigrate labor made it impossible), deported as an Illegal immigrate?

    Who cares who is behind it? It’s illegal. Change the law if you’re so upset.

    Tell me Thomas, why do we allow all of these people from Central America in when my friends in Japan are never allowed the chance to immigrate?

    1. The problem with changing the law is the Republicans, the law should have been changed decades ago. It is as rooted in racism as the “Jim Crow” laws were. Returning it to this thread, IF the Tea Party were true libertarians changing the law, actually getting rid of immigration quotes, would be on the top of their agenda.

      1. Reminder: the Jim Crow laws were passed by Democrats. Martin Luther King was a Republican.

        1. Yes, and Lincoln and Frederick Douglass were Republicans too. No one should forget that in the story of racial progress in America from 1860 to 1964 (particularly 1865-79) it was Republicans on the side of the angels, and Democrats defending white supremacy.

          But the Republican party of 2014 is not the Republican party of 1964 or 1865, and the Democratic party of 2014 is not the Democratic party of 1964 or 1865. Today the people whose views on racial issues are closest to those of segregationist Democrats are Republicans, and the people whose views are closest to those of civil rights activists are Democrats. White voters in Southern states, once the most reliable votes for Democrats, are now the most reliable votes for Republicans. Non-white voters are more inclined to vote for Democrats today than at any time in the past.

          Names live on, but what they represent can change.

          1. Today the people whose views on racial issues are closest to those of segregationist Democrats are Republicans, and the people whose views are closest to those of civil rights activists are Democrats.

            Nonsense. The Democrats remain, as they have been historically, the party of racism. They just have government welfare programs instead of plantations.

          2. Gee, thanks. So Republicans are racist. Your true colors are showing.

            Using your own lines, show me where Republicans are racist.

            I can easily show Democrats are racist, just look at Cabrini Green, or the welfare program.

          3. Today the people whose views on racial issues are closest to those of segregationist Democrats are Republicans, and the people whose views are closest to those of civil rights activists are Democrats.

            Nonsense, Jim. One party wants to keep African-Americans as slaves to the government–and it’s the cruelest kind of slavery, where the slaves vote willingly for their masters.

          4. Gee, thanks. So Republicans are racist.

            That isn’t what I wrote. I wrote that the people today whose views on racial issues are closest to those of segregationist Democrats, are Republicans. For example, take these four statements meant to measure what social scientists call “racial resentment” (subjects are asked to say whether they agree or disagree with each statement):

            1. Irish, Italian, Jewish and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same without any special favors.

            2. Generations of slavery and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for blacks to work their way out of the lower class.

            3. Over the past few years, blacks have gotten less than they deserve.

            4. It’s really a matter of some people not trying hard enough; if blacks would only try harder they could be just as well off as whites.

            Segregationist White Democrats would answer Agree, Disagree, Disagree, Agree. White voters who give those answers today are more likely to be Republicans than Democrats.

            By contrast, Martin Luther King Jr. (or his colleague John Lewis) would give opposite answers. White voters who give those answers today are (like Lewis) more likely to be Democrats than Republicans.

          5. They just have government welfare programs instead of plantations.

            One party wants to keep African-Americans as slaves to the government–and it’s the cruelest kind of slavery,

            I’ve heard this rhetoric before, but do you guys really believe it? Do you really think that voluntarily receiving welfare checks is comparable to, or worse than, being held in slavery?

          6. “White voters in Southern states, once the most reliable votes for Democrats, are now the most reliable votes for Republicans.”

            Way to ethnographically stereotype an entire region of the country. Apparently Democrats can change but not people who live in the South.

            “Non-white voters are more inclined to vote for Democrats today than at any time in the past.”

            Because Democrats demonize their opponents as hating X group of people with BS racist stereotypes.

          7. Way to ethnographically stereotype an entire region of the country.

            Go look at election results — white voters in the South are more reliably Republican today than in the rest of the country, just as they were more reliably Democratic fifty years ago. It isn’t a stereotype, it’s a historical fact.

            Apparently Democrats can change but not people who live in the South.

            I didn’t say that Democrats changed, I said that the party changed. People who had voted for Democrats started voting for Republicans, and vice-versa. Some people who’d always voted for Democrats died, and were replaced in the party by people with different views on racial issues.

            Because Democrats demonize their opponents as hating X group of people with BS racist stereotypes.

            And non-white voters can’t see through that?

          8. “Go look at election results — white voters in the South are more reliably Republican today than in the rest of the country, just as they were more reliably Democratic fifty years ago. It isn’t a stereotype, it’s a historical fact.”

            You were saying that Southern voters vote Republican because one, the other, or both are racist. Your evidence for this are your stereotypes for people of an entire region of the country.

            “I didn’t say that Democrats changed, I said that the party changed. People who had voted for Democrats started voting for Republicans, and vice-versa. Some people who’d always voted for Democrats died, and were replaced in the party by people with different views on racial issues.”

            What a load of bull. Republicans didn’t abandon the values they fought for for over a hundred years. Democrats who filibustered the Civil Rights legislation continued to be elected by Democrats. It wasn’t until the late 80’s and 90’s that Republicans made significant gains in the South.

            You let the Democrat party change but you deny that right to Southerners and you slur the Republicans with the sins of the Democrats.

            “And non-white voters can’t see through that?”

            It is tough to fight through the racial indoctrination of the Democrat party. People who stray from the Democrat party are labeled as race traitors and other slurs. It is common for Democrats to say that you can not advocate, represent, or hold an opinion on race or gender if you are not a Democrat.

          9. You were saying that Southern voters vote Republican because one, the other, or both are racist.

            I said no such thing.

            Republicans didn’t abandon the values they fought for for over a hundred years.

            Very few people get the chance to be politically active for over a hundred years. The Republicans of today are not the same people as the Republicans of 50 or 100 years ago, ditto the Democrats. The positions of the Republican party today are not the same as the positions it held 50 or 100 years ago, likewise the Democratic party. Things change over time. The Republican party of the 19th century loved tariffs and government spending on internal improvements; today’s GOP favors free trade and is suspicious of federal infrastructure spending. In Mississippi in 1870, virtually all black voters were Republicans, and the Democratic party was a white supremacist terrorist organization. Today in Mississippi, virtually all black voters are Democrats. That wouldn’t be the case if the values of the Mississippi Democratic party hadn’t changed.

            Some things have changed fairly recently. There’s a huge gap between white Republicans and white Democrats today on race-related questions like whether Twelve Years A Slave deserved to win Best Picture, or whether they approve of the Trayvon Martin verdict. But just 20 years ago white Republicans and white Democrats had the same reaction to the O.J. Simpson verdict. The parties today are polarized on racial questions in a way that they weren’t not long ago.

          10. Thanks Wodun. Yes, Jim is stereotyping the entire South as racist. Despite the fact that Democrats in the North continued to elect a former Klansman until he died in office just 4 years ago, but supposedly it is the South that changed to Republicans and retained its racism. Jim is a bigot, just like his friends who would cast a vote regularly for Robert Byrd, call Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom, and then talk about the South as being different from them.

  17. Regardless as to how many times things are pointed out to people like Jim, they refuse to grok it. And this isn’t just me talking.

    Here is a fine article entitled:

    5 Obvious Principles of Human Nature That Baffle Liberals

    We see total lack of understanding of all of these principles on a daily basis both here in this forum and in the outside world.

    But there’s one in particular that I underscore for Jim’s benefit. Take note Jim – in the past few days you’ve demonstrated total lack of understanding about this particular one:

    ” 3) Human beings are not angels: As James Madison said, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” Yes, people will come to this country specifically to get welfare and food stamps. Yes, people will commit voter fraud. Yes, there are an awful lot of poor people who DESERVE to be poor because they’re lazy, waste their money, or keep popping out kids by different daddies. Yes, there are just bad people out there who will murder you for no other crime than being American, Jewish, or even just “not Muslim.”

    It would be bad enough if liberals merely failed to take account of these people because other human beings will learn from their example. If one person is allowed to get ahead by cheating the system, other people will follow his lead and eventually even “good” people may decide they’d be fools not to do the same thing. But worse yet, because liberals are so stunningly naïve, they make every excuse in the book for people whose behavior should not be excused. Wherever there is a devil doing evil, somewhere you will also find a liberal championing his behavior and telling the world he’s an angel. ”

    Jim – if people can cheat the system with fraudulent EBT cards – many will (50,000 in Ma. for example).

    If people can get away with cheating on their taxes, many will (Geithner and most of Obama’s staff)

    If people can get away with voter fraud, many will (and have).

    If government officials can scam the system many will (you’re surrounded by it).

    If government officials can use their power in illegal or immoral ways to effect outcomes, many will.

    Unless and until you grasp this, any notion or idea you have is almost always going to be a terrible flop.

    Because you constantly fail to take into account……..

    Human.

    Nature.

    1. Yes, we are not angels. And yet we are not devils, either. We commit crimes, but we do not commit every crime that we think we will get away with — if we did civilization would never have happened. Shoplifting is easy, but most people don’t shoplift. EBT fraud is clearly possible, but the overwhelming majority of EBT transactions are legit. It’s possible on Wall Street to make millions by breaking security laws, but most bankers and traders don’t.

      So you can’t just assume that any crime that can be committed, will be committed, 100% of the time. You have to look at what is actually happening. Criminals will commit some crimes more than others. Some crimes do more harm than others. It’s senseless to expect a total absence of crime, so you pick your battles, and focus on the crimes that you know are happening, and that are doing the most damage.

      We have evidence of all sorts of political crimes causing real harm. Voter impersonation isn’t one of them.

      1. “We have evidence of all sorts of political crimes causing real harm. ”

        And yet you don’t support investigating the persecution of political dissidents by multiple government organizations controlled by the Obama administration. In fact, you think the political dissidents deserved what happened to them. Maybe your priority list of political crimes needs a rethink?

        1. If there are credible allegations of political persecution I’m all for investigating them. The IRS scandal came to light because of such an investigation, conducted by the IRS itself. But at some point, when you haven’t found further evidence of wrongdoing, and the investigation is turning into a political witch hunt rather than a good faith effort to find facts, it makes sense to stop.

          The principle is the same: take a good look, and if you don’t find evidence of harmful crimes, move on. No one has found evidence that in-person voter impersonation is a major problem. When you tried to make that point, above, you came up with three examples that weren’t in-person voter impersonation. Gregg seems sure that there is evidence of a widespread problem, but for some reason he’s shy about sharing the details. Jeff thinks it’s as obvious as the wetness of water, and Jon is sure that there are thousands of cases, but they are just as reticent when it comes to evidence. This seems to be something that you all take on faith. I think that’s a poor basis for policy making.

          1. “When you tried to make that point, above, you came up with three examples that weren’t in-person voter impersonation.”

            I was just throwing out examples of voter fraud since every time this topic pops up you claim voter fraud is like Sasquatch and unicorns.

            “The IRS scandal came to light because of such an investigation, conducted by the IRS itself.”

            We can always trust people to investigate themselves right? And we can trust the DOJ’s “investigation” despite them not talking to the victims and their involvement with Lerner in plotting to throw people in jail based on their perceived political affiliation right?

            “But at some point, when you haven’t found further evidence of wrongdoing,”

            There is plenty of evidence that has been exposed through the congressional investigation but what is needed is an independent special counsel. The congressional investigation has shown that the illegal actions taken by the IRS never stopped and as late as 2013 Lerner was advocating that the administration imprison people. How can you say that this does not merit a full and impartial investigation?

          2. The congressional investigation has shown that the illegal actions taken by the IRS never stopped

            The congressional investigation hasn’t shown that the actions in question — dragging out 501c4 application reviews — were criminal in the first place.

            and as late as 2013 Lerner was advocating that the administration imprison people.

            Lerner was urging the DOJ to investigate and prosecute possible crimes, which is the DOJ’s job. How can you say that Lerner’s concerns did not merit investigation?

    1. Well you see, Gregg, Thomas is better than us because he cares more. He doesn’t have to do anything, he can just put his compassion on his sleeve. With such compassion, he can get haughty and look down upon us who want results rather than cocktail party small talk.

  19. Segregationist White Democrats would answer Agree, Disagree, Disagree, Agree. White voters who give those answers today are more likely to be Republicans than Democrats.

    The problem is that you are comparing a culture 50 years ago to one of today. You cannot ask those questions today and assume that similar answers shows racism.

    We have made a lot of progress since 1964. And maybe, just maybe, we republicans are reacting against an ossified school of thought in the democrat party that still thinks solutions from 1964 work the same for today. And to even suggest that we need to make some changes brings about charges of racism.

    As for the democrat plantation, you probably never heard of this documentary because it was done by a “gasp” black conservative.

    1. You cannot ask those questions today and assume that similar answers shows racism.

      I didn’t say they show racism. I said they showed similar views on racial issues. If it’s 1965 and you answer those questions ADDA, you’d be right at home in the Democratic party. If it’s 2014 and you give those answers, you’d be more at home in the GOP.

      They also hold similar views on national defense. Southern Democrats were very pro-military spending, going way back. It’s a historical irony that some of the military power marshaled against the Confederacy was appropriated by Southern Democrats in the 1850s, over the objections of northerners. If it’s 1965 and you believe in bigger military budgets, you’d be right at home in the Democratic party. If it’s 2014, you’d be more at home in the GOP. The parties have changed.

      As for the democrat plantation, you probably never heard of this documentary because it was done by a “gasp” black conservative.

      I’d have the same question for him — does it really make sense to compare blacks today choosing to apply for welfare, or choosing to vote for Democrats, to being held in bondage? One of the first principles of democracy is that, to a first approximation, people know what is good for them. That’s why we have elections, because we think that the sum of every voter expressing what they think is good for them is the best available guide to what is good for the country. The view that virtually all black voters do not know what is good for them, and are voting against their own interests, is very problematic. It implies a failure of democracy, or a failure of black voters in particular.

      1. There is physical bondage, and mental bondage. The latter can often be more difficult to break, because one doesn’t even realize one is bound.

        1. And we’re supposed to believe that most black Americans are in mental bondage, without knowing it, while most white Americans, on the other hand, are mentally free? You can imagine that such a message might not be too enticing to black voters.

          1. Everyone is bound in their own way. It is in the Dems’ interest to keep the black voting block bound. Heaven forbid they should think they could live without the government dole, or favoratism, and could be self reliant.

      2. Jim, if I wanted to create a class of people dependent on my party being in power for their survival, and completely and utterly in my thrall–my slaves, if you will–I could do no better than the destruction of the family, destruction of the educational system, and now destruction of entry-level jobs being perpetrated by the Democrats in the local, state, and national governments. Get people on government “assistance,” then remove every possible avenue they have to get out of it. “Vote for us and you get food, housing, and… and cell phones! And the other party are all racists, if you vote for them, they’ll starve you to death and put you all on plantations. Never mind that we were the ones who put kleagles in the Senate, just forget about that part.”

        As Rand said, there is slavery of the body as well as the spirit. It was a Republican who led the war to abolish slavery of the body in this country, apparently you have forgotten that, Jim. There are slaves to the government of every possible shade of skin color today, and it’s shameful and a blight on this nation.

        1. It was a Republican who led the war to abolish slavery of the body in this country, apparently you have forgotten that, Jim.

          Look for the occurrence of the word “Lincoln” on this web page.

          slaves to the government

          Isn’t that a bit over the top? Can you really compare being on food stamps to being a slave?

          1. “Do what I tell you, or the food will stop.”

            What do you call that, Jim? What nouns would you use to describe a person presented with that choice?

            And before you call me a racist, would a racist be making impassioned pleas on behalf of those against whom he’s supposed to be a racist?

  20. Jim’s defense of anti-voter ID fraud measures seems to be that the system is so corrupt, prone to abuse, and riddled with ways to commit voter fraud that asking for ID will do nothing to stop the fraud that takes place all over the country in every election, mostly by Democrats, that we shouldn’t do anything.

    That is a change from his past argument that voter fraud doesn’t even exist.

    1. that we shouldn’t do anything.

      Our first priority shouldn’t be to act against the least common sort of voter fraud.

      That is a change from his past argument that voter fraud doesn’t even exist.

      I believe that my past argument was that there isn’t evidence that voter fraud of any sort is actually changing election results. I stand by that argument. But even if you disagree, or think we need to act against voter fraud even if it isn’t changing results, it doesn’t make sense to start with voter ID, which only addresses in-person voter impersonation fraud, something that is vanishingly rare.

  21. “As it happens, she was a poll worker. She’s the one who’d be enforcing your voter id requirement. A voter id law doesn’t even stop voter impersonation if the poll worker is the one committing vote fraud.”

    Lol, what an awesome defense. Why bother with voter ID because all the workers are corrupt Democrat party hacks.

  22. Notwithstanding Jim et. al’s attempts to deflect the topic, I say that impeachment is a waste of time and counter-productive. Obama will never be convicted in the Senate.

  23. Obama is going to attempt to give amnesty to 5-6 million illegal aliens by executive order. He and the rest of the diktat figure that one of two things will happen:

    1) No one will do anything about it, or

    2) The GOP will impeach him.

    The Diktat figures that if #1 occurs, well then the floodgates are open both for millions more illegals entering the country; the system being overloaded, and, more importantly, the Constitution will be effectively dismantled. The real flood that will occur will be the imperial dictates of the Executive branch. Congress will cease to exist as a co-equal branch.

    If the GOP selects #2, well then Obama might be impeached in the House, but he will not be convicted and removed from office by the Senate……..

    ………and the executive order will stand and the results will be as if #1 was picked. Only the backlash of the impeachment could very well allow the Diktat to keep the Senate.

    I’m sure lots of child-marxists are secretly sayig “Ooooh gooodie! We get to do what we want!”

    But you will rue the day………..

Comments are closed.