US American Senator from Texas (checking…no, unfortunately they still haven’t seceded), and traitor to his native Canada, Ted Cruz, wants to impeach the current president, who was born in US America and not an exotic foreign land like “Calgary,” sorry but not sure if I’m even rendering that into English properly. Does he know why he wants to impeach President Obama? Not really. Does he even know how impeachment works? Sadly, no!™
In a question and answer session following a speech he gave at a Montgomery County GOP dinner last night, an audience member asked Cruz, “Why don’t we impeach him [Obama]?”
“It’s a good question,” Cruz responded, “and I’ll tell you the simplest answer: To successfully impeach a president you need the votes in the U.S. Senate.”
Actually, it’s not a good question, and to successfully impeach a president you need the votes in the U.S. House. But other than that, the right-wing senator clearly knows what he’s talking about.
National Review posted an audio clip of the Cruz event, and listeners will notice that neither the senator nor his audience actually bothered mentioning a rationale for impeachment; they just seemed to think it was a good idea. Cruz said something about his belief that Obama has acted outside the law, but he offered no details or specifics.
Typical liberals like Steve Benen want to use their activist judge-led liberal media ivory tower to keep putting “rules” on Republican Thinkers, bullshit rules like “actually, women can get pregnant from rape,” and “impeachment votes are taken in the House, not the Senate.”
But let’s be generous to Senator Hoser and assume he meant that you need the votes to convict in the Senate before you can risk an impeachment proceeding in the House, because otherwise you might risk looking like a bunch of dim-witted assholes with nothing better to do than to waste the country’s time on procedural bullshit. In that sense he’s right when he says that impeachment is “not a fight we have a prospect of winning.”
The bigger problem is, as Mr. Benen pointed out above, “neither the senator nor his audience actually bothered mentioning a rationale for impeachment.” Blake Farenthold, GOP Congressman from, again, Texas (checking again…damnit, no, still haven’t seceded), made much the same argument last week, talking about having the votes to impeach but not to convict, as though the justification for impeachment proceedings were simply a foregone conclusion. Even if it is a foregone conclusion, maybe at some point someone on the right will bother articulating it for the rest of us?
Oh, I suppose if you actually pressed any of these guys the answer would be some mash of Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS “scandal,” Obamacare, gun control, deficits, not defending DOMA, or any of a thousand other tiny and largely fictional scandals. But Fast and Furious fizzled, none of the conspiracy theories about Benghazi has gone anywhere, the IRS “scandal” is deader than disco, Obamacare is a “new law” as opposed to a “high crime,” there hasn’t been any new gun control, the administration did defend DOMA (they just refused to appeal when it was struck down), and if deficits were an impeachable offense then how the hell did this guy or this one last 8 years in office? Is this how it’s going to be every time a Democrat wins the White House? Impeachment will just automatically be on the table regardless of context? We’ll talk about impeaching the elected president as a matter of “having the votes” to do it as opposed to whether or not any actual, impeachable offenses have been committed?
I know the Republican Party’s favorite electoral tactic of late is to disenfranchise as many voters as it can, but turning impeachment from what it is now, a serious constitutional remedy for a serious situation, into just another electoral tactic is taking things just a bit too far.