Sen. Coburn Says Obama Impeachment Could Be Near



Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) told a convention in Oklahoma that Obama, who he calls a "personal friend," could soon be facing impeachment. 

From Politico:

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) joined with a handful of other Republican politicians Wednesday, warning the President that his impeachment could be near.

According to Tulsa World, at a convention in Muskogee, Okla., Coburn said Wednesday that the president was "getting perilously close" to the Constitutional standard for impeachment. He also called the Obama administration lawless and incompetent, the news site reported, although he acknowledged the president as a "personal friend."

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

NEXT: Police Say 'Sovereign Citizens' Planned To Kidnap and Execute Las Vegas Cops

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. OMFG. Address the problem through legislation and oversight, you morons.

    1. I think they would rather threaten to Huff and Puff and Blow the (White) House down.

    2. There is legislation, which Obama routinely ignores. Impeachment is the the oversight mechanism.

    3. Address the fact that the president ignores legislation through more legislation, and the fact that the executive branch stonewalls and subverts oversight through more oversight?

      I’m hoping that was sarcasm, but it didn’t ping on my meter.

  2. I heard this on the radio this AM. “Getting close”? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


    1. I heard this on the radio this AM.

      AM Radio? Racist.

      1. lulz – actually teh Sirius.

        So even MOAR RACIST.

  3. The Biden Administration would be competent?

    1. It would be endlessly amusing, at least.

    2. I am so down with Biden being POTUS.

    3. Me, too. Let it burn.

    4. Biden is a member of the club. So Biden would play nice with the other members of the club.

    5. The Biden Administration would be competent?

      Accidentally, yes.

    6. If you think Obama hasn’t shown Biden and Biden plus levels of incompetence for the past five years, you have been living on Mars fighting hoards of demons. For which I salute you, hero. But time to take a pause and check out what’s going on.

    7. President Biden is the best insurance policy Il Duce Redux could buy.

  4. I’m fine with impeachment, because I’m sure this president and many members of his administration are impeachable on any number of grounds, but why not launch an investigation through select committees and independent counsel first?

    1. I only wish that impeachment was a feature for every presidency.

      1. It should be a required process every two years or so. “Okay Mr. President, time to prove your innocence.”

        1. Would you say that if a white man occupied the White House?


        2. I’d prefer it more of a Let’s Make a Deal game show, just for that element of chance.

          “I’m sorry, Mr. President, but you picked door #2 and that has a federal prosecutor and a file cabinet worth of dirt on you. You’re busted!”

          1. If we’re doing game shows, I want either Carousel or Running Man.

            1. Someone get Tina Turner in here.

            2. “They’re running men. Last season’s winners.”

              “No. Last season’s LOSERS.”

            3. Definitely Running Man. We could give them awesome nicknames, costumes, and weapons. Barry would look fantastic in red lycra under armour.

              It really would bring the country together. Something to discuss around the water-cooler.

      2. In all seriousness, it should happen far more often than it does. Not just for presidents, but for appointees, judges, and members of Congress. It shows how sick our system is that hardly anyone ever gets impeached, let alone convicted. Not like corruption and abuse of power aren’t commonplace.

        1. But, but, it’s a democratic system, so it’s all good.

          At least that’s what my proggy friends tell me. Evidently, the fact that it’s democratic is like some kind of sacrament that washes away all of its sins.

          It’s not that the entire system stinks and should be replaced with something much less corrupt and bloody-minded, no, it’s not that.

          1. First, it isn’t democratic. It’s a representative republic. With the representatives each accountable to a small portion of the population (I think this is one reason the left is so into the fuhrer-principle–the president is the closest thing to a directly representative elected official on the national level).

            Second, total oppression is possible in a democratic system. Athens is a great example–just ask Socrates.

            Finally, no system erases the flaws of the humans who operate it. That’s why we need checks and balances, limits on power, and easy removal.

          2. I was reading World War Z on a long car trip, and there was a bit about the Russians (who turned crazy right wing and theocratic, in a disturbingly prescient turn). They basically forced complete obedience from their forces by making them draw lots and executing the losers, the implication being that they were bound together by shared guilt.

            Democracy’s a lot like that — you want as many people voting as possible, so that those people are made to feel responsible for all the shit that is going on, even though they essentially have no power and most of it would happen regardless of who they voted for. That way they feel less worthy of doing something to stop it.

      3. I only wish that impeachment was a feature for every presidency.

        It’s easier to not vote them into office.

        1. But, they keep getting in! We need a drawbridge and a moat or something.

  5. They impeach him to say they tried to do something and then the senate will… nothing. Everything will roll along just like it has been. This statement and any impeachment effort are all for show.

    1. That’s why they need more evidence before they seek impeachment. The good news is that a broad investigation can find underlings who know stuff who will exchange not getting prosecuted for turning on their superiors. The usual practice.

      1. I think it comes down to 2014. If the Dems lose the Senate, there are likely to be actual honest investigations. When that happens, Obama is going to quickly become a serious political albatross to the Dems. IF that happens, impeachment is a real possibility. Otherwise, the Dems stonewall and hang on until he leaves office.

        The thing with Obmaa is that for all of his cult following among some, he has never really connected with the bulk of the country the way Clinton did. Clinton scandals never really stuck because most people liked Clinton and saw him as one of them and a rogue. Obama in contrast got elected by being a blank slate and re-elected by getting his base out. The number of people who actually like him and feel they understand him is pretty damned low. So if something really big does come out about him, the popular reaction will be different than it was for Clinton.

        1. If the Dems lose the Senate

          I don’t think Obama would face impeachment even if they had a supermajority in the house and senate. Between Boehner and McConnell, neither one has any reason to rock the boat.

          1. Good point. And neither one really I think if they were honest has much of a problem with anything Obama has done. They have to object because that is their role and what is expected of them. But I don’t think they really have a problem with any of it.

            I hate to be a pox on both houses. But the reality is what it is. There isn’t a lot of difference between people like Boehner and McConnell and Obama.

            1. There isn’t a lot of difference between people like Boehner and McConnell and Obama.

              Yeah, I see less difference between them every time I happen to read a story about some bullshit they’re trying to “accomplish.”

            2. There isn’t a lot of difference between people like Boehner and McConnell and Obama.

              Truly, but there is a lot of difference between the mobs they still require the support of to keep their positions of power, and politics is not something driven by reason. I would be surprised if they went there after a hypothetical senate win rather than using an endless parade of hearings and investigations to damage the O and D brands as much as possible. This would be the smart thing, which is why attempted impeachment remains a possibility, imo.

          2. I wish instead of “high crimes and misdemeanors” they had written “poor performance”. We’d have a much lulzier Republic.

            1. Really, “high crimes and misdemeanors” is whatever the Congress wants it to mean. I’m not even sure that point is reviewable by the courts, especially if there’s at least an arguable position being taken.

              1. I know, but it provides a bad psychological anchor. If the Constitution said “poor performance”, then We the People would be much more comfortable demanding impeachment.

                1. This is why I want the Office of the Censor. Censors would be paid on the number of people they removed from office.

              2. If the Commerce Clause and “general welfare” can mean whatever the fuck the speaker says it does, we should get similar latitude with “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

              3. I’m not even sure that point is reviewable by the courts,

                I had a conversation with a rather amiable liberal during the 2000 election mess. I pointed to the relevant section of the Constitution, and I asked him, ‘tell me where the Florida court is even a part of the process here. If you read closely you’ll see that they are carefully and deliberately kept out. It is a matter of the separation of powers.’

                He thought I was being absurd!

          3. Depends on the kind of damage Obama does to the perceived legitimacy of the system. They all have an invested interest in that. Obama seems incapable of stopping himself from saying stupid shit like ‘Inadvertently, Accidentally . . .’ (NSA reading domestic e-mails). They are afraid that the American people will start noticing his habitual and ridiculous lying because if that happens the entire system is threatened by ridicule where no one takes any of them seriously. Their power relies as much on that as it does on the FBI and IRS bullying and the public instructors teaching compliance.

        2. John your elaborate flights of fancy never cease to amuse.

          1. Well Tony, I do tend to have too much faith in people. I would like to think that at some point Obama being so horrible would cause his liberal supporters to turn on him. But the truth is most of them are like you and would support Obama no matter what he did up to and including cold blooded murder. Really, the country is at Obama’s mercy. Politics in Washington requires bi-[artisan effort to hold a President accountable. And since thanks to people like you, there is nothing Obama could ever do that you would ever object to, such a bipartisan consensus can never exist.

            1. But Obama is not that horrible. You just think that because the people you listen to and the things you read have been drilling it into your head for five straight years. You don’t even seem to feel the need to list the reasons he’s so horrible. It’s just a matter of faith. He’s not perfect but he’s certainly no W.

              1. Tony| 8.23.13 @ 11:38AM |#
                “But Obama is not that horrible.”

                Shithead, he’s plenty horrible, but that’s not the point.
                He’s making up laws as he pleases, and ignoring the constitution he’s pledged to defend.
                In short, he’s acting as if he’s royalty; time to go.

                1. Yet, you always jump on that train. Let the choo choo go by for once.

              2. He is that horrible. He’s just not uniquely horrible. When the people calling for impeachment are just as deserving of it, it’s hard to see it as a sincere complaint rather than just more partisan Calvinball.

            2. If you haven’t noticed gridlock is pretty much the status of things in DC – you idiot.

              And why hasn’t Obama started a ground war in Syria like you predicted 50 times last year? You were so sure of it.

            3. All the Dems have to do is remind themselves “At least he’s not a Republican” and all will be well in their worldview.

              1. All the Dems have to do is remind themselves “At least he’s not a Republican” and all will be well in their worldview.

                A perfectly rational, pragmatic outlook. Does everyone have amnesia? Why do Republicans get to nearly destroy the country, and then everyone forgets about it?

                1. Republicans did not “nearly destroy the country”. Responding to hyperbole with hyperbole undermines your point.

                  1. The real problem is they’re not going to stop trying.

                2. Forgets it? It’s what got Obama elected. Change? Remember that. Instead we get more of the same.

          2. Nothing is ever as bad as its worst detractors claim, nor as good as its greatest proponents claim. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle. What do we get if we average Tony and John?

            1. Something purple, retarded and slightly deformed. So…Grimace?

              1. Barney the Dinosaur?

            2. Business as usual.

              1. Ah! Come on, KPres, it’s not that bad…is it?

        3. Maybe losing the Senate in 2014 is what Obama is saving up all those presidential pardons for?

          I’d agree that Clinton had a broader base of support, but the Obama cult of personality is far more militant and hostile, and things could get ugly in places if an impeachment process looked like it might be gaining real traction.

          1. Yes. There are a lot of Tonys out there who will defend him no matter what. The question is are there any Democrats who will find a reason to hold him accountable.

          2. Obama got over 50% of the popular vote both times; Clinton didn’t manage that either time. More individuals voted for Obama in both of his elections than for any other president.

            1. Obama never had to contend with a serious third party candidate you half wit.

              1. I was just giving some facts to contradict the claim.

                Why do you guys not think facts matter?

                1. I was just giving some facts to contradict the claim.

                  Why do you guys not think facts matter?

                  Facts matter. But so does completeness.

            2. And people voted for him because he was black and it made them feel good. That doesn’t mean they like him. They are like you, you know white people who have known very few actual black people but it makes them feel so good to say how supportive they are.

              1. And people voted for him because he was black and it made them feel good.


                How is this ridiculous claim you pulled from your ass any more credible than if I were to say lots of people voted against him because he’s black and conservatives are racist idiots?

                1. Yeah Tony, no one ever claimed to want to be a part of history and how electing the first black President was their moment. None of that ever happened. Jesus Christ Tony. Please stop pretending we are all brain dead. You can’t take 08 and all of the stupid things Obama supporters said back. They happened.

                  1. John it is more than clear that you and other members of the rightwing have the much, much bigger issue with race.

                    I watch FOX News too. Don’t sit there and tell me the primary motivating factor behind everything you support is the belief that only white heterosexual males have any legitimate grievances.

                    Yes electing the first black president was historic and people celebrated it. Bring out the straightjackets!

                    1. His election was about stupid white people like you feeling smug. Pretty much everything the Dems do involves stealing or making low information low IQ white people like you a reason to feel smug.

                    2. I’m highly educated, and most highly educated people are liberals.

                    3. For someone so highly educated, how do you consistently manage to sound so mendacious and ignorant? I notice you’ve been completely absent recently from every discussion, but now here you are again, pretending nothing ever happened. Face it, you don’t care about abuse of power as long as your side is doing it. Republicans, according to you, are trying to destroy the country, but I’m not sure how their tactics of destruction are any different than those used by your support. They certainly don’t seem different to an outside observer.

                      By the way, most highly educated people are also deeply in debt. Having a bunch of degrees on your wall doesn’t mean you have a bit of sense.

                    4. Should have been “those used by the people you support”.

                  1. Oh the NY Post quoting Samuel L. Jackson definitely proves the claim.

            3. Voting against a milquetoast contender with zero likeability and a campaign message summarizable as “Like Obama, but better” != voting for Obama.

            4. More individuals voted for Obama in both of his elections than for any other president.

              More people voted for Mitt Romney than any other Presidential candidate before Obozo.

              1. “More individuals voted for Obama in both of his elections than for any other president.”

                Doesn’t this stupid little attempt at a statistical trick also work in reverse though?

                As in, “more people voted against Obama than against any other sitting president ever”

            5. you are truly a fucking idiot. 50% of what? easy to attempt to manipulate your point there.

              in actuality, the “50%” of people who voted for Obama were less than the total amount of people who voted for Mccain, which means that most people, like me, were too apathetic about either to give .23 shits.

              in short, shut your stupid cunt mouth

    2. . This statement and any impeachment effort are all for show.

      That, sir, is a fact. At least until Obama does something to piss Harry Reid off.

  6. They impeached Clinton – just follow that template.

    This shows what pussies Democrats are. Speaker Pelosi announced they would not impeach Dumbya as one of her first statements in 2007. They just let him wallow and reaped the political benefits.

    1. He signed every budget and meaningful piece of legislation they put in front of him. They probably liked him better than Obama – they got everything they wanted and got to blame Bush for the results.

    2. Also the fact that he didn’t do anything illegal.

  7. If actually making gains towards your goals is a sign of success, then the Republican Party is quite possibly the stupidest collective of individuals in this country.

    1. You’re just now figuring that out?

  8. And practical fusion, flying cars, AI, a libertarian president, and a post-racial society are all right around the corner also.

    1. You missed the unicorn-fart-powered-high-speed-zeppelins.

      1. Not to mention that we are already living in a post-racial society thanks to Chocolate Nixon.

        1. “Chocolate Nixon.”


          1. I saw that yesterday in the AM links, P Brooks’s?

        2. The Chocolate Nixon

          +1000 I think that is a term that needs to be stolen and repeated often.

          1. I will be collecting a $1 royalty on each use.

        3. Somebody more creative than myself needs to come up with some lyrics for that and put it to the tune of Chocolate Rain.

  9. I’ll be right over here, holding my breath.

  10. Sounds like a shiny object to distract OK GOP voters long enough for Coburn to get out of there before addressing real issues.

  11. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) told a convention in Oklahoma that Obama, who he calls a “personal friend,” could soon be facing impeachment

    Go ahead. Pull the other one now.

  12. I’ve always thought Sen. Coburn to be basically sane (if stupid), but he started going nutty after he read Mark Levin’s book.

    1. Coburn supported the V-Chip and is extra-crispy SoCon on everything. But he does interview well.

    2. ….Because physicians have some of the lowest IQ’s among the trades. That’s why I go to a vet. They gotta be able to cure a lizard, a chicken, a pig, a frog – all on the same day.

  13. Woo hoo! President Biden!

    1. Dude, quit saying it. You’re going to give me an erection.

      1. Impeach the both of them and… Woo hoo! President Boner, er uh Boehner!

        1. Somehow, I believe that would be far worse than having Obama as President.

          1. Stop it! You’ll make him cry!

  14. Coburn said Wednesday that the president was “getting perilously close” to the Constitutional standard for impeachment. He also called the Obama administration lawless and incompetent

    I really like how the latter isn’t somehow included in the former.

  15. If W. was eligible for impeachment, then so is Obama. I’ll let the Bluetards and Redtards chew on that for a bit.

    1. If W. was not eligible for impeachment then no president ever was or ever will be unless he strangles a hooker on live TV.

      1. Who said he wasn’t eligible?

        1. *shhhh* He’s got the straw man on the ropes!

          1. I mean, I even gave him a big blue warning sign not to walk into that briar patch, but oh no…

      2. The derp is strong in this one.

      3. Obama has endorsed, continued, and expanded the Bush-era policies which you claim to hate. Bush certainly deserved to be impeached; by extension, so does Obama. For some reason, I doubt you’ll come to this conclusion. Could it be that the D/R in front of the person’s name is more important to you than their policies? Fuck off.

        1. Obama has endorsed, continued, and expanded the Bush-era policies which you claim to hate.

          False. Obama never lied his way into a hugely disastrous war against the wrong country. Obama stopped torture as US policy. He put more oversight over the spying programs, though I’ll grant that I’m still not happy with them.

          This narrative needs to die. Not because I want to give Obama support, but because this inane false equivalence is utter Bush fellatio.

          1. The derp is strong in this one.

          2. Obama never lied his way into a hugely disastrous war against the wrong country.

            He merely committed wilfull agression against Libya, without even the pretext of AUMF.

            Obama stopped torture as US policy.

            Bradley Manning. 9 months solitary confinement.

            He put more oversight over the spying programs.

            Did I miss when he put the unicorns in charge of oversight? The FISA Rubber Stamp Court goes back to the Bush administration.

          3. He put more oversight over the spying programs *citation missing

            No he didn’t. The oversight that you speak of is the same secret FISA court that was in place during the BOOOOOOSSSSSSSHHHH!!111!!!! administration. The same court that wasn’t enough oversight for fuckwits like you when an R was in the white house but is all of a sudden just peachy now that your Chocolate Nixon dreamboat is president.

            To the extent that any reforms ever happen you can thank Edward Snowden and civil liberties minded pols like Ron Paul, Justin Amash, Ron Wyden, and a small handful of others, most of whom you’d never stoop to voting for because “RETHUGLICAN TEABAGGERZ!!!11!!!!!”.

            In short, go fuck yourself with a splintered off broken broom handle you mendacious tardo cockstain.

            1. “Bartender, I’ll have a Chocolate Nixon. Go heavy on the gin.”

          4. Obama stopped torture as US policy.

            Obama’s position on torture has been the same as every president except Bush: viz, “I don’t want to hear about any torture going on. If I hear about any torture going on there wil be trouble (for the people exposing it)”.

            The only difference is that Bush actually admitted to approving of torture.

            Let us take note of the fact that it is a poorly kept secret that rendition of terrorism suspects to countries that are less scrupulous about torture is still going on.

    2. Any president is “eligible” for impeachment at any time. It’s not really a legal matter. “High crimes and misdemeanors” equals nothing more than than 218 votes in the House and 67 votes in the Senate.

      If a president can’t muster the support of even 34 senators to stay in office, then he’s toast and might as well resign.

      1. I think you know what I meant, hyperpedant.

        1. Maybe that should be my band name.

          However, I was simply using your post to point out that the “legal” maneuverings around impeachment are pure fiction. It’s nothing but a political numbers game.

          The Bluetards and Redtards aren’t going to “chew” on anything, since they aren’t capable of looking beyond the team boundaries.

          1. Oh yes. To play from that, I wish the Founders had written “poor performance” instead of anything about crimes. We could pitch a President every 18 months on that standard.

            1. I’m failing to see a downside here.

            2. This is where the Westminister parliament has an advantage.

              A truly incompetent Prime Minister can be pitched in days if it becomes obviously necessary.

              1. ChrisO’s view is interesting because it presents impeachment on the basis of “high crimes and misdemeanors” as something simply like a vote of confidence, which I had never thought of before. But I would hesitate to take that view because Art. II, Sec. 4 reads “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”, and so applying the principle of ejusdem generis, it would seem to require something more than “I don’t like him”. Of course, I am not saying that that something more does not exist, but to impeach on lesser grounds would make the whole procedure seem like a political sideshow.

            3. I think the Founders had this naive vision that our federal political class would not consist entirely of narcissists and sociopaths.

              On the other hand, Jefferson seemed to think that our constitutional scheme probably wouldn’t last more than a half-century. He was basically right, of course. He probably just underestimated the degree to which the dead corpse of the Founders’ vision could be used to facilitate tyranny.

    3. W actually broke the law through warrantless wiretapping.

      Although Obama does the same thing the law was changed in 2007/08 to make it retroactively legal to cover for W.

      1. And even the rubber stamp FISC court found that Obama breaks the law with the NSA bullshit. Somehow I doubt that you’ll find any parallels between the two cases.

        1. Come on now. You’re gonna make shreeeky cry. Everybody knows Chocolate Jesus is as pure as the driven snow.

          1. Driven snow? Racist!

            1. And then it runs away and hides.

      2. Although Obama does the same thing the law was changed in 2007/08 to make it retroactively legal to cover for W and so that Obama would be able to continue the policy without fear of reprisals should any of those “dangerous” libertarian minded folks get enough political power to actually do something.


        Remember, the Dems controlled congress at that time, so why would they simply want to cover for BOOOOSSSSSHHHH!!!!. They did it because they knew their guy was going to win the election and wanted to give him cover. They only made it retroactive because they didn’t have a Senate supermajority yet and needed a few RETHUGLICANS to vote for it. But then you already knew that you worthless piece of shit.

  16. Boehner may be spineless in many regards, but I’m quite sure he’s smart enough not to wade into that pond. If the votes for conviction aren’t there in the Senate, there’s absolutely no reason to bother.

    The best thing the GOP could hope for would be to regain the Senate (or come very close) and let Obama rot harmlessly in the WH for the next three years. If the GOP hadn’t impeached Clinton, I’m convinced that Bush would have trounced Gore in 2000.

    1. Take a page from the Clinton thing and go for censure. You get a symbolic win at least.

    2. Rethuglican obstructionism!

  17. As delighted as I would be to watch the glorious tragicomic clown opera an impeachment would be, I think they need a specific articulable and proveable charge. “YOU SUCK!” doesn’t really get us where we need to be.

    Any charge related to the usurpation of Congressional power would necessitate a long and extremely uncomfortable confrontation with the face looking back from the mirror.

    1. Funneling arms to Mexican drug cartels and jihadists isn’t sufficient?

      1. You could add breaking the war powers act or that whole murder droning thing.

        Hell, even though it looks mild in comparison, the first act of his presidency was to break bankruptcy law in order to shovel what was left of chysler to his union cronies.

      2. I’ve been informed that these are phony controversies. If Dear Leader and his surrogates says they are phony, then that’s a thorough debunking in my eyes.

  18. P Brooks’s?

    It was an embellishment and an improvement on my “Nixon Junior”.

  19. Nobody ever brings Republicans’ unpopularity to this discussion. Impeachment would be the culmination of everything everyone thinks is wrong with them (they’re petty and obstructionist). Without question an impeachment move would benefit Obama and harm Republicans, just as it did with Clinton. Any GOP operative who is not telling his clients this should be fired.

    1. Which is why the GOP won’t actually do this. Instead, they’ll let Obama languish on his godawful record.

    2. “Everyone”? Really? Are you really that fucking deluded or are you simply an incompetent troll?

      As I understand it, the partisan breakdown in this country is that Dems and Reps each have about 25% of the population. Counting leaning independents, we’re pretty close to a 50/50 split in this country, even if the relative percentage of truly uncommitted voters is lower than it used to be.

      1. Don’t respond to it. It’s here to troll.

        1. We seriously need to start a program of troll-responder-shaming.

          Speaking of which, John and OM are two of the worst offenders. They dance on cue every damn time.

          1. Meh, you people just need to switch to chrome and get the “Reasonable” plugin.

            And yes, by “you people,” I mean blacks, because I’m racist.

            1. Nice.

              I will switch to Chrome as soon as they pull their heads out of their asses and get a fucking master password for their browser.

              1. Check with the NSA. They should have it.

          2. And who the fuck are you?

            Trolls are people who post mean things on dead kids’ websites.

            People with opinions that differ from you are not trolls. They’re probably just intelligent.

            1. When you post completely stupid and over-the-top Team Blue shit, you get close to trollhood.

              And yes, folks, I’m sorry I engaged. I’ll try to avoid it in the future.

              1. THE SYSTEM WORKS.

            2. Shorter Tony: “Any1 hoo disagreez wit me is stoopid, becuzz my mommy told me I was reelly smart, and reely smart peepul alwayz agree with me cuz Im super dooper intell.. intelij… reelly smartt.”

              1. Libertarians are all stupid and what they believe is nonsense. This clicks for most people around freshman year in high school.

                That you call anyone who disagrees with you a troll suggests that you’re incapable of knowing this because you’re too afraid/unaware of how learning works to get outside your bubble. Cults work pretty much the same way.

                1. No, it’s more the fact that you can’t seem to come up with anything approaching a consistent argument to support any of your positions. You don’t even try. Instead, you change the subject every time you’re being subjected to a logical beatdown, which pretty much happens every time you post. You throw up strawmen consistently and refuse to acknowledge when you’re clearly shown to be wrong. Never once have I seen you say anything approaching “you know, you guys may have a point there”. I have seen posters on occasion recognize when you make a cogent point (which unfortunately is rare). I’ve never seen you say anything bad about a Democrat in any real sense. That’s why people think you are a troll, because you look like a flack for the party PR arm.

          3. Speaking of which, John and OM are two of the worst offenders. They dance on cue every damn time.

            It’s so boring, isn’t it. Long digressions about Star Wars or video games are more interesting.

            1. “Long digressions about Star Wars or video games are more interesting.”

              The scroll wheel is handy!

      2. “Everyone”? Really? Are you really that fucking deluded or are you simply an incompetent troll?

        He really does thing that everyone else is leftist shitsack just like him. Well, everyone that matters anyway.

    3. Probably true it would hurt republicans more. I’m mean look how hard the media works for the president now. Imagine how hard they would spin if he were really under attack.

      1. One of the great mysteries of life to me is how conservatives can simultaneously claim to be macho self-reliant rugged individualists and also constant powerless victims of everything.

        If journalism, academia, science, and pop culture are against you, there’s a slight possibility, which you may want to consider, that the problem is with you.

        1. Um not sure where I mentioned anything other than the media, and weren’t you calling me an anarchist yesterday. Are there conservative anarchist? Also if you believe MSN’s lean forward and president Obama’s forward campaign were strange coincidences I don’t know what to tell you.

          1. MSNBC is definitely liberal and largely pro-Obama. But liberals are smart enough to realize that, and they tend to get information from many sources and understand which ones are reliable.

        2. Tony| 8.23.13 @ 11:50AM |#
          “One of the great mysteries of life to me is how conservatives can simultaneously claim to be macho self-reliant rugged individualists and also constant powerless victims of everything.”

          Well, shithead, if you make up fantasies they can be as mysterious as you please.

          1. That constant “shithead” thing hasn’t worked for years. do you know the definition of insanity?

            Just. Fucking. Ignore. It.

            1. “Just. Fucking. Ignore. It.”

              Some of us aren’t ready for sainthood.

              1. That, and you have no self control.

    4. The derp is strong in this one.

    5. they’re petty and obstructionist

      Christ, that’s what I like about them. What’s wrong with Republicans is that they’re statist shitheads who stop obstructing once they’re in power.

      1. Obstruction is a feature, not a bug.

    6. Re: Tony,

      Nobody ever brings Republicans’ unpopularity to this discussion

      The president is not a Republican. The Democrats were not particularly popular during the Nixon years, either. What that has to do with the possibility of impeachment of the president is beyond me.

      Without question an impeachment move would benefit Obama and harm Republicans, just as it did with Clinton.

      The economy is not like Clinton’s.

      Go back to wet-dreaming of burly jack-booted men witn guns, Tony. That seems to be your thing now.

      1. You’re missing the point. The act of impeaching Obama will be viewed by most people as a giant ridiculous stunt and will solidify support of Obama in reaction to the dumb Republicans, who everyone remembers already tried the stunt once.

  20. Playing devil’s advocate for a moment, Coburn’s point about Obama’s increasing lawlessness is valid.

    While the smartest political play is to let Obama stink up the WH badly for the next three years, his complete willingness to ignore the law is troubling. After next year’s elections, he will have no incentive to even pretend anymore. Yes, I know, presidents always bend the rules and selectively enforce the law, but Obama’s gone way beyond that. He’s come right and openly refused to follow the law.

    At some point, that can’t be ignored anymore. I don’t know where that threshold is, though.

    1. Impeaching Obmaa is like plunking A Rod. It will just let him play the victim card more than he already does and seem sympathetic. Just keep investigating, let him keep lying and let the Democrats own his record after he steps off the stage and they no longer have a cult of personality to build their party around.

      1. The Democrats are nothing but a cult of personality. They’ll find another aggrieved minority huckster to build the next cult around by 2016. It probably won’t be Hillary though.

        My point (and perhaps Coburn’s, too) is that, at some point, Obama’s lawlessness becomes too big to ignore. I think we’re a long ways from that, but the trend is going in the wrong direction.

        1. I don’t see how it can be anybody but Hillary.

          1. You could have said the same thing eight years ago.

            1. “You could have said the same thing eight years ago.”

              Not after the 2004 Convention Speech. I knew Obama was going to make it competitive right then and there.

            2. “You could have said the same thing eight years ago.”

              True, although I suspect if HRC runs in 2016 she will be more organized. IIRC, her campaign didn’t have much organized beyond the first couple of rounds of primaries b/c they thought it was going to be a coronation. When she & Obama split the early primaries, she didn’t have enough troops on the ground to win the next few rounds.

              I’m sure there was more to it than this but I think this was a significant factor.

          2. Cory Booker or Deval Patrick come immediately to mind. Don’t be surprised if Elizabeth Warren looks into it, too.

            Outside of aggrieved minorities, I’m guessing the idiot governor of Maryland has his eyes on the WH, too. Andrew Cuomo’s probably thinking about it, too.

            Hillary’s age is working against her, and Benghazi is going to be a real problem–if nothing else, other Democrats will bash her for it in the primaries.

            1. I am skeptical about Hillary. I don’t see her creating the cult that Obama did. And she is even among the Democrats, few people’s first choice. The retard socialist green block wants Warren or O’Malley. Blacks will go for Booker. Biden would take the few working class whites left in the party. Cuomo would get the douchebag elite vote. Her only chance at the nomination is to intimidate people like Booker and Warren into not running and making it a three or a four way race against Biden and a couple of nobodies.

              1. I don’t see her creating the cult that Obama did.

                She doesn’t need to; she’s already got her husband’s cult. I understand what you’re saying though. Hillary isn’t very likable, and were it not for her husband’s perceived success, she’d stand no chance whatsoever.

                1. Much water has flowed under the bridge, and the Clinton cult isn’t what it used to be.

                  If there’s another viable black Democratic candidate in 2016, it will be interesting to see how Hillary deals with that, since extremely high black turnout is mostly what got Obama into the WH.

                  1. Without a black candidate, Obama endorses Hillary and she gets the black vote. With a black candidate she probably doesn’t. Without the black vote, who is her base? Aging feminists? A lot of them will go for Warren.

            2. That and the palpable hatred that team red has for her. I think they hate her worse than they ever hated Bill. They would turn out in crazy numbers if Hillary actually got nominated and I think the Dems know this and the new Obama left will find a way to derail her.

            3. I think the most interesting thing about 2008 was not that the Dems won (it was hard to see McCain beating anybody) but just how quickly the Clintons got moved out as power players in the party.

              1. ) but just how quickly the Clintons got moved out as power players in the party.

                I think you made that up, cause they’re still power players in the party.

                1. I think you made that up, cause they’re still power players in the party.

                  But not the controlling interest that they were for years.

                2. @ anon.

                  True; I should have clarified that. In 2008, they did not have the control over the primary process that I think most people expected them to have. That is, the Dem primary had the appearance that a lot of D voters wanted anyone but HRC. Given Bill’s popularity and involvement in the party post-WH, that was surprising.

                  However, you are certainly correct that the Clintons, or at least Bill, have re-established themselves to some extent.

      2. Strategically, the GOP should do everything in their power to terrorize Democrats facing midterms into pulling the trigger on impeachment by dragging them into his scandals and beating the scandal drum. If Democrats lead the drive to impeach the first black president, they’ll cripple their support with blacks for a decade or more.

    2. Playing devil’s advocate for a moment, Coburn’s point about Obama’s increasing lawlessness is valid.

      And if I believed for a moment that the GOP actually cared about the president behaving lawlessly and the constitutionality of laws rather than being out of power I would tell them to go for it.

      1. I don’t care if they care or not. Their motivation is frankly irrelevant to me. If they want to do this out of political spite, it’s still the right thing to do even if they do it for the wrong reasons.

  21. I think they need a specific articulable and proveable charge.

    That shouldn’t be too difficult. You could draw random crimes out of hat, at this point, and get one to stick.

    1. The problem is that the things that actually are impeachable offenses are things that most people in his own party want him to do. Most Democrats think the IRS should be used to go after political opponents. Most Democrats are perfectly okay with sending guns to Mexico for the purpose of generating political support for gun control. If it came out that he was using the NSA to spy on Republicans most Democrats would be happy to hear it.

      Now, they couldn’t admit that publicly. But that is what they would think. So what they would do is just deny it was true no matter the proof. That is what they are doing now. The head of the IRS section in charge of non-profit takes the 5th before Congress and they call it a phony scandal. You know the drill. All they need is to get enough people to repeat the talking points long enough and it gives them a fig leaf.

  22. let Obama rot harmlessly in the WH for the next three years.

    Decades of abdication of their duties means he can do plenty of damage unconcerned by any suddenly renewed interest on the part of Congress in meddling in the day to day governance of the country.

    1. It is not just Congress. The Democratic Congress barbequed Bush over Katrina. The White House can be held accountable. But to do so it takes Congress and the major media. Without the media giving its support, anything Congress does is just written off as partisan noise. If the media supports it, the average person listens and thinks it is serious.

      The media will do anything to cover for Obama. So, it is pretty hard for Congress to touch him. As long as he has the media to defend him, he is like Solatzo in the Godfather. We need a Micheal Corleone to put a bullet in the legacy media’s head.

    2. If the WH wants to simply ignore whatever Congress does, they can get away with it. All the enforcement mechanisms for contempt-of-Congress charges and such are in the Executive Branch. So long as the president has 34 votes in the Senate, he can basically be a dictator if he wants. And yes, that’s a scary fucking thought.

      The Obama people seem to truly believe they can do whatever they want.

      1. The real enforcement mechanism is funding and impeachment. And the media will never allow those to be used. Like I said above, the administration is accountable to no one. Hard to see how that works out well for anyone.

        1. At this point, Obama might just issue an executive order to continue funding on an “emergency basis” if Congress tried to shut him down budget-wise. Who’s going to stop him?

          And yes, our fake media would probably go along with it.

          1. During the last debt ceiling debate there were a lot in the media who said he should just unilaterally issue debt Congress be damned. So, yeah, I wouldn’t be surprised if he did that.

            1. I forgot about that.

            2. Haven’t they already done that? The debt has remained flat for how long now?

  23. Impeaching and convicting Obama would be he worst thing for Republican prospects in 2016, even if they had a supermajority in the Senate. He would probably set up a Government in Exile in Harlem and MSNBC would (officially) become the “President in Exile”‘s Press Corp.

    1. Dude. harlem? Come on man.

      1. The racism eventually creeps out.

        1. Since you are the most openly racist poster on here, you would know. Why don’t you tell us more about Justice Thomas’ white wife Shreek? Come on, get your racist Southern Democrat on for us.

        2. a Government in Exile in Harlem

          To be fair, didn’t Clinton do this?

    2. It would be on the south side of Chicago, which as everyone knows, is the baddest part of town.

  24. “although he acknowledged the president as a ‘personal friend.'”

    It seems like every criticism of Obama is always either preceded or followed by, “but he’s such a great guy.” Somehow I doubt that’s really true.

    1. It’s an indirect defense against charges of racism.

    2. Compliment sandwich.

      “You look like snoopy and it makes me smile.”

  25. “although he acknowledged the president as a personal friend.'”

    It seems like every criticism of Obama is qualified by “but he’s such a great guy.” Somehow I doubt that’s really true.

  26. You could draw random crimes out of hat, at this point, and get one to stick.

    Far be it from me to contradict you, but he’s a slippery bastard, and actually pinning anything on him personally would take some serious work. I definitely think it could be done, but I see no likelihood of the Congress being interested in doing it. And, most of those crimes are a result of Congress being asleep at the switch. They are not likely to advertise that.

    1. He really isn’t that slippery. He just has supporters like Tony and Shreek who will defend the indefensible. He practically announced that he planned to send guns to Mexico as a way to pursue gun control under the radar. He bragged multiple times about his power to have his political enemies audited. He met with the Chief Counsel of the IRS two days before said counsel write up legal standards targeting the Tea Party. He is incredibly arrogant and not that clever. He thinks he is untouchable. So I would imagine there are a lot of smoking guns to be found. But, since he is above the law, he is likely never to turn them over to Congress.

        1. All of those things are well known. You can use google just like the rest of us.

          1. But John, the facts don’t matter. What matters is the source. That’s why he wants you to give citations. So he can ignore the content and attack the source. Remember leftists believe fallacies such as ad hominem attacks win arguments.

            1. So he can ignore the content and attack the source.

              Hey, it works for MediaMatters!

            2. There is such a thing as understanding which sources are reliable and which are not. The Johns of the world, convinced that all reliable sources are actually in a giant conspiracy against them, only trust propaganda.

          2. Please do carry on believing bullshit. I think on balance it’s good for the country. People who actually believe in the bullshit lies from WND aren’t going to be very good at winning elections.

  27. I get a warm fuzzy feeling thinking about the Snowden leaks continuing out into 2014 and beyond with weekly news conferences from a special prosecutor running in parallel.

    Obama would be paralyzed.

    1. ahahahaha

      Where do you think that special prosecutor will materialize from, your replicator?

  28. Here is the thing with the Chocolate Nixon, he has been in an environment dating back to Chicago where he has never been in any danger of ever being held accountable for any crime or misdeed. People always say that so many politicians in Illinois and Massachusetts end up in prison because the politicians are worse there. That is not really true. All politicians are bad. The difference is that Illinois and Massachusetts are basically one party oligarchies. So no one is ever held accountable for ordinary theft or misconduct. Even the occasional Republican who wins in the state is either a part of the oligarchy or powerless to stop it. So politicians who come up there never worry about ever being held accountable. And this often turns ordinary crooks into extraordinary ones. Eventually they start thinking that you can not just steal a little on the side but do crazy shit like sell Senate seats or trucking licenses. It eventually gets so bad that even DOJ can’t ignore it anymore and they are off to federal prison.

    The same thing is happening with Obama. As time goes on and him and his administration normalize the idea that they are accountable to no one, they are going to keep doing more blatant and crazier shit. The scandals today are going to seem like small affairs compared to the ones that roll out in 14 and 15 and 16. That sort of culture of total unaccountability will inevitably produce misconduct that will astound even the most cynical.

    1. Eventually they start thinking that you can not just steal a little on the side but do crazy shit like sell Senate seats or trucking licenses.

      Honestly, I thought that was pretty common. Crazy shit is killing a hooker and getting away with it.

      1. No. It is not that common. You can’t be that blatant. That is why the people who did it ended up in prison. Politicians from those states go to federal prison fairly often. And it is never for run of the mill stuff. It always involves stuff that was so obvious no one could ignore it anymore.

        1. Really?

          I figured if they Teddie could get away with offing a hooker that they pretty much had free reign to do whatever the fuck they wanted in MA and IL.

          1. That was Teddy. And he didn’t get away with it. He lost the ability to be President, which for a Kennedy in the 70s was the statutory maximum.

          2. Teddy didn’t off a hooker.

            The girl was one of those political groupies that flock to Democratic politicians volunteer organizations here in MA.

            And yes, Kennedy should have gone to jail over it. Had he raised the alarm promptly, it’s likely she would have died, but there was a slim chance she could have been saved.

            Instead the asshole sat on the news of the accident for hours and called his fucking lawyer before he notified anyone that she was trapped in his sunken car.

    2. Re: John,

      the Chocolate Nixon

      “I am not a chocolate crook!”

      The scandals today are going to seem like small affairs compared to the ones that roll out in 14 and 15 and 16

      Be prepared to be scared when school books start lauding and praising the fearless leader’s achievements a la Kim Il Sung.

      1. All of them will be dutifully written out of history. Just like no one mention’s Wilson’s horrible economic record or resegregating of the federal government.

  29. The question I have is, just what would Sen. Coburn impeach him for? The Senator has no problem with the NSA spying on us.

    1. Right question. My guess is that Corburn thinks aspects of the NSA stuff is illegal and Barry is complicit.

      But, whatever Corburn is saying, there won’t be any impeachment for Barry. The first black president impeached? Not gonna happen.

      1. Yikes, Coburn.

  30. “Periously close”? I see that Sen. Coburn and Sen. Franken should combine their acts and go on the road: The Not Ready for Beltway Players

  31. This notion is DOA.

    While the House probably has the votes to impeach Obama, there’s no way a conviction would follow because it is the Harry Reid (Democrat) controlled Senate that must decide to convict.

    Did Republicans already forget the negative p/r they got when they failed to convict Clinton in his impeachment process?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.