Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Bucky

(53,998 posts)
Fri May 17, 2013, 01:50 PM May 2013

I remember 1997, thinking "they can't possibly be serious about impeachment over THIS." They were.

Never underestimate a Republican's capacity to believe their own bullshit. They are serious, they will do this (or try), and they feel they have nothing to lose in the effort. This isn't posturing. This foreplay we're watching is just them working up a head of steam. It doesn't matter to them that the "scandals" du jour are mostly scammed out of distorted nothing incidentals. It doesn't matter that the impeachment will not lead to a successful removal from power. Their success will be measured by how much they are able to clog up the works or government and to what degree they are able to distract the commander in chief from his duties.

The majority of Republicans see Democrats, as a brand, not as political rivals, but as political enemies. A more extreme minority of Republicans see all Democrats not as political enemies, but as enemies of the nation. It's delusional, sure, but the only thing crazier would be for our side to assume that their side was bluffing. They aren't. Their calculus is that even if they lose, they win by gridlocking all activity in Washington. This is what we'll see play out over the next few months.

17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

sharp_stick

(14,400 posts)
1. I will never forget the shit eating grin
Fri May 17, 2013, 02:31 PM
May 2013

on the face of Henry Hyde as he delivered the articles of impeachment to the Senate in 1998.

I have never before or since wanted to beat an old man to a pulp so badly.

Beacool

(30,247 posts)
8. The same Henry Hyde who had an affair.
Fri May 17, 2013, 03:06 PM
May 2013

He and the woman were both married. Her brother spoke and said that it ruined her sister's marriage. Hyde stated that the statute of limitation had expired on his "youthful" indiscretion. His age at the time of the affair? 47.

Most of the men who pointed fingers at Clinton had done far worse than receive oral sex. They had had full blown affairs and even illegitimate children.

They almost ruined Clinton's presidency over something that was private and none of their business in the first place.

They dragged a first lady to testify in front of a grand jury (the first time in history). They also left the Clintons, the poorest couple to enter the WH in decades, in financial debt.

By the time they left the WH, the Clintons owed 2.5M in legal bills. Their staffers were also left with a large debt. Once he left office and started making some money Bill paid off those debts, to the tune of $14M.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
2. Bring it.
Fri May 17, 2013, 02:33 PM
May 2013

How'd that go for them last time? Oh, they lost big even though it was the 6th year of a president? The election where the president's party almost always does poorly?

I'm really, really, really hoping they do impeach over this utterly weak bullshit while the entire country is screaming about the economy.

Sheldon Cooper

(3,724 posts)
3. I thought the same thing.
Fri May 17, 2013, 02:35 PM
May 2013

And they got their asses handed to them. They seriously underestimated the tolerance of the American public for their bullshit, and it'll blow up in their faces again if they take another shot at it.

kentuck

(111,089 posts)
5. Did they really do so bad after the impeachment?
Fri May 17, 2013, 02:39 PM
May 2013

We got 8 years of George W Bush and 6 years of majority Republican rule in the House and Senate after the election of 2000. That doesn't sound like they got their asses handed to them to me??

Bucky

(53,998 posts)
10. Thank you. They benefit from voters' fatigue & apathy.
Sat May 18, 2013, 03:22 PM
May 2013

They burn down the town, then bait and switchover to a guy smirking about how he wants to get along with Democrats in Washington. You only need about 5% of the voters to drink the sand for the ploy to work.

LeftInTX

(25,288 posts)
14. Totally agree and with post #5
Sat May 18, 2013, 03:41 PM
May 2013

They fire up their base.

They can use the IRS thing to revive the Tea Parties. On and on it goes.
They have so much anger you would think they would get heart attacks.

Beacool

(30,247 posts)
6. The nation's forefathers are still spinning in their graves.
Fri May 17, 2013, 02:52 PM
May 2013

"High Crimes and Misdemeanors" became "lying about receiving oral sex after being entrapped by a special prosecutor who accepted illegally recorded audio tapes".

JHB

(37,159 posts)
7. Now there's an answer for "Who changed the Benghazi talking points?"...
Fri May 17, 2013, 02:55 PM
May 2013

..."Vince Foster, of course."

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
9. I think they would, I'm not sure this lot really knows how. I think the organization of such a major
Fri May 17, 2013, 03:38 PM
May 2013

procedural event might actually be beyond their capacity. I think it is more likely they will continue making political macaroni art and finger paintings.

loyalsister

(13,390 posts)
15. Maybe we should not continue to minimize Clinton's impeachment
Sat May 18, 2013, 04:05 PM
May 2013

My first thought was "who wouldn't lie about an affair?" And, I had looked at perjury charge with the same seriousness of aiding and abetting in a minor felony.

The lying about sex seems minor (who wouldn't lie about cheating on their spouse) but it did take place in a legal proceeding. So, they did have some flimsy but real goods to proceed with the hearing, in that he technically did commit a crime. Luckily the Senate was smart enough to distinguish between perjury related to a personal matter and perjury about something that could truly damage the country.

I don't think they have any kind of allegations anywhere that could possibly compare to Clinton's impeachment. At some point, it would help if Clinton would acknowledge that he cleared the path for that agenda, and Obama has not done that. But, it takes a suspension of ego that I doubt the Big Dog naturally has in him as having been the leader of the free world.

I just hope that some day we can move beyond threatening serious consequences for political gain.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I remember 1997, thinking...