Skip to content

To Impeach or Not Impeach?

An old-school political appointee-turned commentator and a former Governor — both Republicans of one strand or another — have now staked out opposing viewpoints on a major, percolating issue of our time (it wouldn’t be commented upon by high-profile folks like this if it hadn’t been percolating).

On the one hand, Pat Buchanan thinks that President Obama should not be impeached. He claims that there has been no real evidence provided, to date, that the President himself was directly involved in the multitudinous scandals (and/or allegations thereof) surrounding the administration. He goes on to say that Senate Democrats could even use impeachment talk to stir support for their cause.

On the other hand, former Governor Sarah Palin says Obama should be impeached, due to the aforementioned scandal allegations. She says that the Administration’s actions are enough to move forward with impeachment, and the sooner, the better to protect working families.

Logistical thinking (not necessarily conventional or otherwise) says that no impeachment proceedings (which must originate in the House) would ever make it to the Senate unless and until the GOP were to take it over in 2014. A GOP Senate takeover wouldn’t formally occur until calendar year 2015, which means there’d be under two years to potentially make any head-way with impeachment. In this type of scenario — with a GOP-dominated House and Senate — I would think, practically-speaking, that most folks would be happy to simply have the Legislative act as a bulwark against the Executive.

The only wrench in the above scenario is where the “imperial presidency” comes into play, where Obama simply does what he wishes without regard to the Legislative branch. And what with illegal immigration becoming a bigger issue by the day, there could yet be some rhetorical fireworks.

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.