Be careful what you wish for:
While the phrase customarily is taken as a negative, this ABC News/Yahoo! News poll finds that Republican registered voters in fact divide evenly, 42-43 percent, on whether gridlock is a bad thing because it prevents good legislation from being passed — or a good thing, because it blocks bad laws.
The split underscores many Republicans’ skepticism of active government. But it may make it difficult for GOP leaders to push their own legislative agenda. And it raises questions about the durability of the party’s appeal to independent registered voters, who favored Republicans by a record margin Nov. 2, but who see gridlock as a negative by a 2-1 margin, 57-28 percent.
It seems to me that the electorate doesn’t have some ideological preference for how to create jobs but they don’t believe it’s acceptable to do nothing. We have a Democratic president and a Democratically-controlled Senate. Therefore, it is totally unrealistic for House Republicans or the Republican base to think that they can impose their economic plan on the country. They need to compromise, recognizing that they are not in control and inaction is unacceptable.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that they will do so, however, and that means that this Congress will fail. The next two years are going to be little more than a debate over why the government is incapable of action and whether or not its inaction is a good thing. What’s most depressing is the prospect of the government getting substantially less popular than it is right now. I don’t think we’ve ever had a Congress polling this low, and that’s the starting point for what will be one of the most dysfunctional Congresses in our county’s history.
Except for the investigations. Birth certificates, Preachers, whatever, everything is on the table.
They will not consider it a failure because the media will once again play the game of their times, sensationalizing Republican hissy fits. And how can the ‘normal’ media’ ignore what is to come when the Fair and Balanced Fox network is playing it up non-stop.
I doubt they will impeach him in the next two years, their plan is to wear down the American public so Obama won’t be re-elected. But when he wins in two years (against Palin) they will impeach him with what they have, probably within 3-4 months of the oath.
And he will be guilty of what they charge him with. He will find out the true cost of continuing Bush policies. If he kills an American abroad like he claims he can, he’s toast.
And by that time, not even I will care.
nalbar
I don’t think the Republicans would impeach him for killing the guy who is trying to destroy our commercial aircraft. That won’t happen.
Modify that to “I don’t think the Republicans would impeach him for doing something they want Republican Presidents to have the power to do” and you’ll have it 100% correct.
When the House puts together some Committee to investigate impeachment on Obama, it will not be for anything “real” he has done. It will be for trivial bullshit to pull his name through the mud. It will be over offering someone an Ambassadorship to drop out of a primary race, or having a land deal that blew up in his face, or accepting a gift that he shouldn’t have.
They aren’t going to impeach him for something that can blow up in their faces down the road and set a precedent. They will find some trivial bs reason to prop up and do it – something that sounds horrible and will drag his name through the mud like they did with Clinton. Mostly because they still haven’t figured out exactly why that didn’t work and why Clinton was more hated when they started attacking him then his was when they were finished (especially by the left, who were ready to impeach Clinton themselves before the Republicans decided to go after him for trivial shit).
I don’t think so. I think they’re more concerned with destroying his presidency the old-fashioned way.
You are right,
But after he is re-elected, all bets are off.
nalbar
It takes a 2/3 majority in the Senate to convict on impeachment. I do believe there will be at least 34 Democrats in the Senate after 2012 and those sufficiently understanding of the issue not to be stampeded into conviction.
And by then there will be enough histories of the Bush administration out to turn around public opinion. Maybe even to the point of seeing the GOP as only interested in impeaching Democratic presidents. Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, both Democrats. The impeachment committees, Republican. The actual charges mostly bogus. Or an impeachment looking from a high crime or misdemeanor.
And the Republicans are oriented toward impeachment not just to seize power but to get even for the hero of their youth, Richard Nixon, being driven out of office for actual impeachable offenses. This sort of tit for tat motive could have been very easily projected onto a Democratic effort to impeach George W. Bush for demonstrable violations of Constitution. That is why I think the Democratic caucus took impeachment off the table. Not Nancy Pelosi, but Steny and the gang.
The country very well might have been better if Johnson had been impeached.
Nobody said anything about a conviction.
But I have no doubt at all he will be impeached if he wins a second term.
It’s what they do.
nalbar
How Low Can Congress Go?
You haven’t seen their worst, or best(of you want to be sarcastic), yet. Steve King. Peter King. Darrell “Car Thief” Issa. Drudgico and Mark Halperin are going to need an IV of Viagra these next two years.