Saturday, May 17, 2014

Impeach the President?

Short on time again.  Though you may find this discussion interesting.
MinnPost Impeachment Anyone
"I guess I don't know much about this topic, however these comments seem way too one sided.
 
Now Bush did have a big advantage. Many of the liberties he took were tied to "National Defense" when people feared Al Qaeda. And since the President is the Commander in Chief, he was given some latitude.
 
Whereas Obama seems to using Executive privilege in some places where it may not belong.
  •  Letting schools opt out of NCLB
  •  Delaying ACA implementation
  •  Raising min wage for federal contractors
 
It will be interesting to see where this goes. Especially if the GOP takes over Senate control this in January." G2A
 
"As of January, Obama has issued 168 Executive Orders,compared to George Bush with his 291 in 8 years and Ronald Reagan with 391. By the way, last I heard, Al Queda is still a threat but I guess Obama doesn't get the same latitude because ...oh yeah, he's a Dem. Thanks for chiming in however and adding nothing to "your side" other than just blind, partisan speculation. I'm sure there's some poor people you can chastise for their poor life choices coming on another thread real soon. Better warm up your blog..." Jason
 
"Yes they are and I am happy Obama has not undone all of the good work that was done to ensure the war on terrorism stayed off US soil. And if his dictates focused around keeping us safe, he would get that benefit. Unfortunately his dictates seem to be about getting around the rules passed or not passed by the Legislative branch.
 
By the way, have you started Buying American whenever practical? It is good for American workers, Government revenues, Unions, etc." G2A
Thoughts?

71 comments:

Laurie said...

Impeaching Obama is ridiculous, but the the GOP should try it as it would help Hillary win.

John said...

If they do it, I think they will wait until they have a majority in the Senate.

Or maybe they believe that just talking about it will help keep Obama from over reaching.

Do you think Hillary has a chance? I know nothing about her politics, however I think Bill got the charisma in that family.

Anonymous said...

An attempt to impeach Obama would be a fundamental attack on our Republic and our constitution. It would literally risk civil war.

--Hiram

John said...

Have you seen his approval ratings? I think Clinton was a lot more popular and no shots were fired...

Of course the Liberals would say it was a race issue... Just like the commenters on MinnPost alluded to. That misleading rumor mongering would likely cause some strife and conflict.

Anonymous said...

..

Have you seen his approval ratings?

I saw the election results.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

It is hard to imagine a President more deserving of removal from office, but it's not going to happen because, a) it is to the Republicans' disadvantage and the Democrats' political advantage to take the focus off of Obama's incompetence and lawlessness. If that seems strange, just remember the great lengths Democrats have taken already to obscure it. Faced with impeachment, they could get even louder and more extreme.

The second thing is that Obama has "insurance." If he is removed, Slow Joe Biden becomes President, and NOBODY wants that. The best outcome is to let Obama continue to be an albatross on the neck of Democrats, including Hillary, have Republicans take over the Senate and forestall any further damage until they can win the WH in 2016. Hopefully we'll have a country left.

Anonymous said...

Impeaching the president would be a direct assault on the legitimacy of the political process. It would be a decision to enter into the greatest constitutional crisis since the Civil War.

--Hiram

John said...

Hiram,
Please explain your rational.

Laurie said...

It takes 2/3 of the senate to convict/remove from office. There is no way this could happen. The GOP would pay a huge political price for trying. GOP leaders are dumb, but I don't think they are that dumb. I think even talking about it hurts them.

John said...

Laurie,
It may not be popular with the Liberal 40%, but it would be intensely popular/energizing with/for the Conservative 40%. And I think the middle 20% would be split as usual.

It all depends on how good the smoking gun is...

Laurie said...

so you are in support of impeaching Obama and believe half the country agrees with you? That is insane. It is so dumb, in fact, that it makes me question why I spend time reading your blog. While you pretend to be moderate and rational it seems your views are no less extreme than Jerry's on many issues.

So remind me, just what are Obama's high crimes and impeachable offenses?

John said...

I don't think I ever said I supported impeaching him. Or encouraged anyone to do so. Please note the question mark in the post's title.

Hiram and yourself said it would be a big deal if it happened and that the GOP and/or country would be damaged if they took that action. I said that ~50% of the population would support or not be against it.

As for grounds, here is what one group thinks...

Grounds to Impeach

It does seem they would need a better smoking gun to sway that middle 20%.

Sean said...

If you're against "excessive executive power", you could impeach every President in the last 30 years. Congress has refused to do their job in oversight -- and they have passed laws that have ceded their duty to the executive branch. Perhaps they should take back the wheel instead of merely trying to change drivers.

jerrye92002 said...

I agree we should be against "excessive executive power," and I agree that much of that has been ceded by Congress. What is new in the Obama age is that this excessive power has been SEIZED by the Executive, against the apparent will of the Congress. For example, the 40 different countermanding of parts of the clear Obamacare law.

And I agree with Laurie. Republicans would be suicidally stupid to try impeachment. If ever it was deserved, I think this is it, but it's a matter of dozens of small affronts, not one major "high crime," and having half of the Senate in Democrat hands guarantees it would be a futile exercise with Negative political benefit to the GOP. That's what happened with Clinton. Sometimes doing what's right, and even reasonable, gets you bruises.

Anonymous said...

In my view, Congress through a collection of silly rules, has created a power vacuum. That being the case, they have little to complain of when others, including, but not limited, to the President of United States, fill it. Congress needs to understand that checks and balances go both ways, and that if they allow the business of this country to go unchecked and unbalanced, others will fill that role for them.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

It isn't just silly rules, it is the incompetence of one political party that doesn't care about what they do, claiming "we have to pass it to find out what's in it" and then leaving most of the actual law to be decided by the Executive Branch, while simultaneously forcing "gridlock" to avoid correcting their mistakes or engaging in proper oversight.

Laurie said...

"it would be intensely popular/energizing with/for the Conservative 40%" - I guess it wouldn't be supported by all conservatives, then, or are you the only rational one? I think impeachment would have about 20% support.

It's good Sean still comments occasionally, to elevate the level of discussion.

John said...

~51% of the population voted for Obama in 2012. That means ~49% thought someone else would do better. To me that means ~49% wouldn't mind if he was ousted through legal means. That is unless they think Biden would be worse.
Wiki 2012 Election

And though his approval rating is improving, it looks like it is at ~46%. Gallup Obama - Bush Approval Ratings in Yr 6

So what is your rationale for thinking that only 20% would support his impeachment?

Why do you think that other 29%who did not vote for him would not support impeaching him if solid legal grounds were found?

I am sure half the population would have supported impeaching Bush in 2007 if grounds could have been found... Would you have supported impeaching Bush? What is different about Obama?

John said...

I was trying to think of a good comparison of why it does make sense that the furthest right folks discuss this.

It seems to me that they are like the "no walking on the grass" signs, or a guard in a bank, or the cameras on the gas pumps, etc.

They are simply helping the administration to remember not stray too far from the legal path or push their luck, because there may be repercussions.

Laurie said...

Lying to go to war with Iraq sounds like an impeachable offense to me, though I don't think there is adequate proof. I think his other worst crime is torture, though I don't think that is adequate grounds for impeachment.

Obama has used the executive branch in the same way as his predecessors and has done nothing to justify talk of impeachment.

You really think most people support impeaching a president they don't like. I think most people have more respect for the constitution and change of leadership through winning elections.

Anonymous said...

To me that means ~49% wouldn't mind if he was ousted through legal means.

I wouldn't make that assumption at all. Impeachment here would be an attack on our constitutional process, the very legitimacy of our system of government. I like to think 49 percent of the people favor that. It's certainly not something I favor when the candidates I didn't vote for win election.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

"They are simply helping the administration to remember not stray too far from the legal path or push their luck, because there may be repercussions." -- John

Boy, you really do not understand us far right extremists, do you? First of all, Obama doesn't give a rodent's rump about what any right-thinking citizen, and that includes you, thinks. And the far right doesn't care about anything except what THEY think is right. We must impeach Obama just because it is the right thing to do, and somehow we imagine that everyone else will just quietly agree with us because we are SO right.

Interesting that the Far Left and Far Right are so much alike. The FR believes that if they do the right thing everyone will agree. The FL believes that everyone already agrees so it doesn't matter what they do. The FR claims the moral high ground based on their actions. The FL simply assumes the moral high ground as their birthright.

jerrye92002 said...

"Obama has used the executive branch in the same way as his predecessors and has done nothing to justify talk of impeachment." -- Laurie

May I disagree? Obama has flagrantly violated the laws as passed by Congress (rather than faithfully executed them) on multiple occasions. There are the 40 changes to Obamacare. There are the recess appointments when Congress was not in recess. There are changes to immigration, education and drug enforcement, all totally unlawful. There are the coverups of Benghazi, the IRS, Boko Haram, and the Black Panthers. There is interference in the States' rights on education, welfare, voting, and law enforcement. ALL of this unprecedented in modern time, and all enabled by a quiescent Congress controlled by Democrats. That is why impeachment should happen, but won't.

Sean said...

Like you can't come up with a similar list for Bush?

Iraq war intelligence, torture and rendition, Valerie Plame, warrantless surveillance, 9/11 intelligence bungling, signing statements, on and on and on ...

jerrye92002 said...

Nope, sorry. I see your list, but I can't clearly say they are clear violations of the law. The thing Bush is most criticized for, saying that "we have learned that Iraq tried to buy yellowcake from Nigeria" was absolutely correct. The WMD proposition was advanced by Saddam himself and huge stockpiles of precursor chemicals and delivery systems were, in fact, found. Not like Saddam thought or we believed listening to him, but they were there. The Valerie Plame incident was a total sham, nothing to it. Torture at Abu Ghraib was punished when discovered, not ordered from the top. There were no warrantless surveillance, Congress created the FISA courts for that-- agree or disagree, it was legal. Now the NSA snooping, THAT is on Obama's watch.

Now, anyone wanting to make a similar defense of Obama's violations of law, feel free.

jerrye92002 said...

And sorry again, but the opportunity to impeach Bush has past. Why didn't the Democrats do so, when they had the opportunity? Any indictment you can make of Bush, at any point, does not wash away a single one of Obama's high crimes and misdemeanors. "He did it, too" is not a legitimate legal defense.

Sean said...

Bush's signing statements are exactly the same thing you criticize Obama for doing -- ignoring or changing provisions of laws passed by Congress.

The Valerie Plame incident was not a sham. You should read the filings from U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald.

Our handling of war on terror prisoners was not legal -- witness two Supreme Court rulings that said so.

Obama's NSA activities are direct carry-throughs of programs started under Bush, which include warrantless surveillance.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/a-superb-pbs-documentary-on-nsa-spying/370836/

This just undergirds the notion that talk of impeachment in politically-based, not legally-based.

If you were serious about controlling executive power, you would have been complaining long before now.

jerrye92002 said...

Perhaps so, or perhaps I thought the charges against Bush were more political theater than serious lawlessness. I don't subscribe to your equivalence, and it wouldn't matter if I did. Bush cannot now be impeached. The only question before us is whether Obama's activities clearly rise to the level of impeachable, and then whether Congress has the will, or need, to follow through in this instance.

John said...

Atlantic Spying

John said...

Hiram,
You keep saying something like this, however you still have not posted your rationale.

"Impeachment here would be an attack on our constitutional process, the very legitimacy of our system of government."

Sean said...

I agree with Hiram's statement.

It would represent an attack on our system of government because it's not based on actual "high crimes and misdemeanors" but rather grievances over losing an election to the guy twice.

Laurie said...

I agree with Hiram and Sean. Impeaching Obama would be a huge deal, not only because there are no grounds for it, but also because as he is our first African American president it would be seen as racist by many (including me.) I think there would be large demonstrations in support of Obama and his approval rating would take a big jump.

I find it curious, John, how you have trouble seeing what a big deal impeachment would be and how it seems like a reasonable proposal to you.

John said...

Just as the Liberals see that it was "obvious that Bush lied, tortured and trampled our freedom".

It is equally obvious to Conservatives that Obama is severely bending or breaking the law.

So while you are adamant that it is just "politics", people like Jerry whole heartedly believe it is enforcing the US Laws for the good of the country and us citizens.

"Impeachment in the United States is an expressed power of the legislature that allows for formal charges against a civil officer of government for crimes committed in office. The actual trial on those charges, and subsequent removal of an official on conviction on those charges, is separate from the act of impeachment itself." Wiki Impeachment

So if enough Legislators believe there is adequate evidence to Impeach, it is their duty to do so... Whether you support the sitting President or not.

If the votes are there, would you encourage the legislators to just close their eyes because it may cause civil strife?

Using the "he's black, so we need to let him do as he wishes" is also wrong.

Thoughts?

Anonymous said...

Just as the Liberals see that it was "obvious that Bush lied, tortured and trampled our freedom".

What's relevant here is that when Bush was president, for some reason, they never viewed those possibilities as grounds for impeachment.

--Hiram

John said...

Though I don't remember it, apparently they talked a lot about it... Just like the Conservatives are today.

Wiki Impeach Bush

Just curious... Hiram, Laurie or Sean, Did you ever sign a petition to Impeach Bush?

Would that have been a gross miscarriage of justice because of his race and because he won the office twice?

Would it have caused a civil war?

Sean said...

I did not support any effort to impeach President Bush. Sorry to burst your bubble.

If people like Jerry were truly interested in enforcing US law, they would show that same interest regardless of the President's party affiliation. But Jerry doesn't do that.

BTW -- You're the one bringing race into this, not us. I don't recall anyone saying "he's black, so we need to let him do as he wishes". Maybe you need to look in the mirror as it deals with the President's race, as you're the one who keeps talking about it.

jerrye92002 said...

"If people like Jerry were truly interested in enforcing US law, they would show that same interest regardless of the President's party affiliation. "-- Sean

Nonsense. There is a night and day difference between the two. First, because Bush cannot be impeached, he's gone. More importantly, I like to wait for clear evidence of wrong-doing rather than spurious charges raised by political opponents. Bush's supposed offenses were always, AFAIK, bolstered by some reasonable claim of legality, regardless of what you might have thought of the actual policy. Some of Obama's offenses are the same-- Benghazi, the IRS, Fast and Furious, arguably legal and no proven direct involvement--but others, like altering Obamacare by executive fiat, are clear violations of the law by the President himself-- no question whatsoever about the facts. Now, whether that is a "high crime" or a "high misdemeanor" are judgment calls, followed by the question of whether it is politically wise for Republicans to pursue it-- two different things. I would say unquestionably yes on the first, and undoubtedly no on the latter.

John said...

Technically Laurie brought race into it...

"but also because as he is our first African American president it would be seen as racist by many (including me.)"

I personally don't care if he was purple with pink polka dots.

John said...

And Karen on MinnPost.

"I think something similar is going on with the calls to impeach Obama. I know that racists absolutely hate being called racists, but remarks I have heard and seen continually since the 2008 election make me suspect that racism is part of the mix. Otherwise, the whole "birther" fuss makes no sense. The racists know that it's socially unacceptable to say what they really want to say, so they resort to calling Obama "a Kenyan Muslim.""

As you brought up in a previous post, racism still does exist... So it could be a factor.

Sean said...

Jerry, were President Bush's signing statements, where he declared laws passed by Congress unconstitutional and refused to obey them also illegal?

jerrye92002 said...

Please be specific about the signing statements. I may or may not remember one case in which he said he believed it was unconstitutional and would hold off until the courts weighed in. Something like that would arguably not be a violation of the law.

jerrye92002 said...

And I wish just once somebody could criticize our President without being called a racist. Yet it is the people making the charge who are the racists, because THEY are the ones saying the criticism is based on the President being "black." I don't hear anybody criticizing the man's color, just his actions.

And what happens if a black person criticizes Obama in the same way? How can you possibly make the case for a charge of racism? Besides, even if it were true, does that make the criticism invalid? If Obama were a white Republican, would his critics still be wrong?

Anonymous said...

Did you ever sign a petition to Impeach Bush?

I certainly didn't. I am a great believer that the legitimacy of the process must be protected.

"Would that have been a gross miscarriage of justice because of his race and because he won the office twice?"

I don't quite understand the question, but I would have regarded any effort to impeach Bush with a white hot fury. I didn't vote for him, but he was elected president twice.

It's Republicans who are constantly raising issues of the legitimacy of candidates they lose to. Note the birther claims that were made against Obsama. As far as I know, no Democrat has ever raised similar objections to Senator Cruz's eligibility to be president despite the fact that he actually was born outside the United States. As was Senator John McCain, by the way. Back in the day, no one questioned George Romney's eligibility to be president despite the fact he was born in Mexico.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

And I wish just once somebody could criticize our President without being called a racist.

Not a problem for me. I have criticized the president frequently, and have never minded being called a racist because of it.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

And what happens if a black person criticizes Obama in the same way?

Black people can be racists too, and I have certainly heard racist criticisms of Obama from the black community. I am just not sure why it matters. The fact is, the president had significant support from the racist community, because those people often hate white folks too. It's one of the advances in our country that increasingly, racism has become color blind.

Laurie said...

"As you brought up in a previous post, racism still does exist... So it could be a factor."

I found that statement surprising as I thought you were a racism denier. I don't think it is the biggest factor, as there would be talk of impeaching Obama if he were white as well. I just brought it up as charges of racism would complicate the whole issue if he were to be impeached (which he won't)

Anyway, I never supported impeaching Bush and was surprised that it was introduced into the house. I don't remember there being much talk about it.

Lying to congress to get approval for going to war is just a recent example of what I consider a high crime. Besides not having proof, that would have been a difficult decision, because would we really want to impeach a president while we are at war or would we try to stay more united.

John said...

I don't disagree that racism persists. I just think it is less of a factor than you do.

John said...

"Lying" is a loaded term.

It implies he knew better.

jerrye92002 said...

"Lying to congress to get approval for going to war..." Well, that explains why Bush was never impeached. What he told Congress was exactly correct. It wasn't that the information later turned out to be false, making it NOT a lie (he believed it at the time), but it later turned out to be factual.

And I don't think lying to Congress is a crime, unless you are under oath. That was the charge against Clinton, and he WAS impeached for it. Now I think lying to the "American people" should be a crime, but under that prescription Obama would have been impeached years ago. Bill Clinton was "an exceptionally good liar," according to his best supporters. Obama is just an exceptionally frequent one.

Anonymous said...



"Lying to congress to get approval for going to war..." Well, that explains why Bush was never impeached.

I think Bush was never impeached because Democrats understand the legitimacy of the election process.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

Odd, that's not what they said after Bush won the election. It seems the only thing they "respect" is gaining and exercising raw political power.

Anonymous said...

Odd, that's not what they said after Bush won the election.

It's what I said a lot, and at least after his first election, it was especially important to say it because President Bush didn't win with a plurality of the votes. Now, I suppose it is possible to mine the data, and between and you can find some folks who raised what I would describe as entirely groundless complaints about Bush's legitimacy, but that simply wasn't a mainstream Democratic position.

Respect is a different issue, of course. While I respect the office then and now, Mr. Bush was certainly the most disastrous president of my lifetime.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

Odd, that's not what they said after Bush won the election.

It's what I said a lot, and at least after his first election, it was especially important to say it because President Bush didn't win with a plurality of the votes. Now, I suppose it is possible to mine the data, and between and you can find some folks who raised what I would describe as entirely groundless complaints about Bush's legitimacy, but that simply wasn't a mainstream Democratic position. Sometimes people in politics are possessed of what I think of as "rabbit ears". They hear things that aren't said, but sometimes are thought. This can be the result of projecting one's own thoughts on others.

Respect is a different issue, of course. While I respect the office then and now, Mr. Bush was certainly the most disastrous president of my lifetime.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

The lack of legitimacy is a continuing theme among Republicans. One example of that is their willingness, eagerness to revisit elections. The Clinton impeachment was one example of that, throwing Grey Davis out of office in California was another. Here and elsewhere, I often hear the comment that when legislators of other parties win, they are their representatives. Legitimacy is a prism through which many Republicans see the world, and they have a tendency to project that view on others. I, for one, find this mystifying. Once the election was decided, it never occurred to me to question the legitimacy of the presidency of George Bush. Tim Pawlenty was my governor then to exactly the same degree Mark Dayton is now. Cruz and McCain have an unquestioned right to run for president because they are over 35 and natural born citizens of the United States.

Projection can be a problem particularly because of the asymmetry of out politics. The Democratic and Republican Parties are not mirror images of each other; they are not opposites, and so projection doesn't often work. As parties, they are simply different.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jerrye92002 said...

"Mr. Bush was certainly the most disastrous president of my lifetime."

That sounds suspiciously like an opinion. That you are certain of it does not make it true. And you write remarkably well for someone who died in 2009. :-/

Laurie said...

the complaints about Bush's legitimacy were not entirely groundless, but even though Bush was appointed president in 2000 dems made very little complaint and accepted him as president.

Anonymous said...

That sounds suspiciously like an opinion.

I think it borders on objective president. It's hard to think of a president who combined foreign and domestic disasters in quite the same way.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

the complaints about Bush's legitimacy were not entirely groundless

Call it an opinion, but they were groundless. My arithmetic skills are not extraordinary, but I can count up to 270 in a way that doesn't represent an opinion.

Can you imagine the chaos Republicans would have inflicted on the country had the situation been reversed? Had the Republicans, already convinced of the illegitimacy of any election they lose, lost in the popular vote and won in the primary. Or even more narrowly, had been able to shut down the recounting process in Florida? It would have been a four year long national nightmare.

--Hiram

Laurie said...

If the supreme court had not intervened to stop the vote counting Gore would have won Florida and the election. When votes are not counted that looks like an appointment to me.

Anonymous said...

If the supreme court had not intervened to stop the vote counting Gore would have won.

Possibly, but they did, and he didn't. Gore might also have won if he had paid more attention to his home state. There are a myriad of scenarios that might have altered the result, but only one of them happened. There are some things I don't like, and there are actually some things I like about Gore v. Bush, but all of it, including all the things I like and don't like in the decision, are the law of the land.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

Some of you are making it sound as if the Supreme Court decided based on purely partisan grounds. I think a proper opinion would be that it was the recounting that was illegal, which was what the Supreme Court ruled.

jerrye92002 said...

"I think it borders on objective president. It's hard to think of a president who combined foreign and domestic disasters in quite the same way." -- Hiram

Of course. Obama has combined foreign and domestic disasters, scandals and failures in an entirely unique, unprecedentedly awful, comprehensive and kaleidoscopic fashion. One could argue that LBJ had fewer but greater failures: the 50-year war on poverty that has the same percentage and many more people in poverty, and the Vietnam War, which was a policy failure, and worse. For all Bush 43's faults, I don't think he even makes an objective list of Top 5 worst Presidents. Partisan hit lists, absolutely. BDS was real.

Anonymous said...

"Some of you are making it sound as if the Supreme Court decided based on purely partisan grounds."

Even if that were the case, it would be irrelevant to the legitimacy of the ruling.

"I think a proper opinion would be that it was the recounting that was illegal, which was what the Supreme Court ruled."

Thankfully, we live in a country where neither counting nor recounting votes is illegal. I would hate to see anyone go to jail for exercising one of the basic tasks required in a democracy.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

"Obaama has combined foreign and domestic disasters, scandals and failures in an entirely unique, unprecedentedly awful, comprehensive and kaleidoscopic fashion."

Apart from the VA, I don't see any scandals. There have been some political disputes, however. I will be looking forward into the Congressional investigations in Congress' failure to adequately fund the VA. I expect they will be really hard on themselves.

--Hiram

Laurie said...

my point was there were grounds to question the legitimacy of W's presidency, although I never did. Somebody needed to be declared president and it was the supreme courts job to do it, though unanimous rulings would have been better ( I think the split was the along the usual conservative/liberal lines, which looks partisan.)

jerrye92002 said...

"Apart from the VA, I don't see any scandals."

Let's see: Fast and Furious, two border patrol agents killed with guns the US ordered sold to Mexican drug gangs. Benghazi, four Americans, including an ambassador, killed by terrorists while US military rescuers were told to "stand down." Then an innocent US video artist is blamed and jailed. The IRS denies tax exemptions to over 200 conservative organizations and NO liberal organizations, stonewalls Congress and continues on, while IRS employees flout the law on political activity. The attorney general refuses to prosecute the Black Panthers for voter intimidation and refuses to defend DOMA, which is his job. At least 26 VA hospitals followed WH directives over the last 4 years, and at least 40 people have died as a result. There's more, and you can call them "scandals" if you like, but only because no one has been charged or held accountable for these CRIMES in which people died or were denied their rights.

You can defend the Obama "regime" all you like, but no other president has amassed such a long record of moral, legal, Constitutional and general policy failings, all while playing more golf and basketball than any President in history.

jerrye92002 said...

"Thankfully, we live in a country where neither counting nor recounting votes is illegal."

It depends on how the counting or recounting is done. It is highly possible to do those illegally or "incorrectly." Josef Stalin said, "It is not the votes that count, but who counts the votes."

The Supreme Court became involved because the recount was being conducted contrary to law, to give advantage to the Gore campaign.

Laurie said...

Jerry, do you have a problem with golf and basketball and a higher level of respect for clearing brush as a leisure time activity? When if comes to time off Bush took about 4X as many vacation days as Obama.

"Obama "has taken 92 days of vacation since he was sworn in. How many did President (George W.) Bush take by the same point in his presidency? Three hundred and sixty seven. Yes, more than a full year of vacation."

Who vacationed more, Bush or Obama?

While I usually ignore your streams of misinformation this one was too tempting to pass up and debunked with 5 seconds of research.

jerrye92002 said...

I'll accept your numbers without verification, Laurie. But what I said is that he spent more time playing golf-- 163 rounds at last count-- compared to just 24 for G.W. Bush in 8 years. And yes, I do consider brush-cutting better exercise, more productive, and more available to the common folk during a period when most people cannot enjoy the elitist pastime of golf. Bush also tended towards "working vacations," whereas Obama, by many accounts, doesn't work even when NOT on vacation. How else to account for all these things he "didn't know about" or "nobody told me"?

Basketball I don't begrudge so much-- everybody needs exercise-- but the lavish parties and vacations, some under the guise of "official business" seem likewise this emperor's prerogatives. That said, the country might be better off if he took a lot MORE vacation. Certainly not an impeachable offense either way, but will you admit it looks bad?

Sean said...

Here are two studies the GAO did during the Bush administration regarding signing statements:

http://www.gao.gov/decisions/appro/308603.pdf

http://www.gao.gov/assets/120/119350.pdf