Impeachment

Over the last couple of days I've been engaged in a give-and-take with one of Karen's cousins about the possible impeachement of President Obama.  Mike makes a strong case that the grounds are there for a bill of impeachment, based mostly on how the President sidesteps laws with which he disagrees when it suits him.  I can't argue that it would be wrong, legally, to pursue impeachment.  Mike's technically correct.

I part company with him, however, when it comes to the advisability of pursuing impeachment.  There are myriad reasons for this, not the least of which is, to borrow a phrase, what difference would it make?  Here, then, are my reasons for my demurrer:

First of all, as I already alluded, there are only two and a half years left on the President's term.  By the time all the legal wrangling was over, there might only be a year left on his term.  Even assuming impeachment would be rendered, then what?  Uncle Joe Biden runs the country?  I remember when discussion about taking Hitler out were had.  Two nagging questions were always, who would replace him and would he be worse?  The same would happen here, although we already know that Uncle Joe Biden would step in to replace Mr. Obama.  As Osama Bin Laden even knew when he counseled his minions to take out President Obama, leaving Uncle Joe in the ultimate position of authority would be disastrous for the country.

Second, going after the first black president is only fraught with peril.  There is a substantial block within the black community, and an even larger one within the white liberal community, that view any criticism of the President as being motivated by racism.  That being said, no matter how that position contradicts Martin Luther King's dictum, these substantial voting blocks will automatically activate to defeat any Republican candidate after a bill for impeachment is begun, and they may even sway unaffiliated voters with their cries of racism, no matter how inapposite.

Third, keeping a focus on the mid-term elections to elect a veto-proof Congress is far more effective than removing the President.  With an immovable Congress hamstringing him and even repealing his signature piece of legislation, not to mention lanuching investigations into the plethora of scandals that have been brushed aside by the administration and a compliant MSM, the President would twist in the wind publicly and be called upon to answer why things went the way they did during his terms.

Fourth, find a solid candidate and unite around that candidate for the 2016 presidential elections.  A bill of impeachment would only serve as a distraction from this.  Getting rid of Mr. Obama only serves a purpose for two years; solidifying a strong candidate for 2016 means at least four years of governance, with a possible four year renewal after that.

Fifth, the GOP has greater need to make inroads into minority communities, and should put more effort into that rather than attacking this man.  Again, most within those communities will only see a largely white party attacking a successful black man and chalk it up to racism.

To summarize, impeaching the President may be legally actionable and even warranted.  I do not believe he's guilty of treason -- unless there are things of which I'm unaware -- that militate in favor of removal.  There are plenty of good reasons to work on weakening him and the Democratic Party's candidates to reassert control over the country's future instead of pursuing vengeance.

But if the conservatives are successful, they'd better be very, very careful to fulfill their campaign promises. Eric Cantor's loss in the Virginia primary is a loud and clear message that incumbents had better deliver or suffer the consequences.

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles