Leadership (Part 2): the Impeachment Whisperers

Psst. The “I” word is back.

That would be impeachment, specifically the impeachment of President Barack Obama. It has been out there for some time now, of course, and Rep. Steven King, R-Iowa, is not the first to offer up the possibility.

And, of course, the word has been bantered about for many a president — including President James Madison during the War of 1812. It was called “Mr. Madison’s War,” after all.

This time, King suggested that the House might go there—impeachment—if President Obama chose to issue an executive order that would defer deportation of millions of illegal immigrants already in the United States.

Speaker of the House John Boehner has repeatedly said impeachment is not on the table. He also said once upon a time that he would never allow a government shutdown on his watch, but we know what happened there.

Boehner has initiated and pushed through legislation that the House would sue the president over the use of executive actions as a kind of abuse of power.

The good and faithful public servant Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska and vice presidential running mate of Senator John McCain, has loudly and repeatedly urged the impeachment of the president, as in “We must impeach.” McCain has stoutly maintained, “I do not agree with her.

Boehner has insisted that the House would not do such a thing and argued that all the impeachment talk is a scam by the Democrats to raise money for the November mid-term election campaign.

If the president should pursue some sort of solo policy and executive action on immigration, why then that would be impeachable. Doing nothing about immigration except to deport immigrants is apparently not impeachable.

Still, this has been the do-nothing House of Representatives that has set a new standard in nothing doing. As for Palin, well, speaking of dereliction of duty, the governor quit her governorship in the middle of things because she had other, more important things to do—conduct a fact-finding bus tour as to whether there were enough people who wanted her to be president (there weren’t) and to cheer her daughter’s efforts on “Dancing with the Stars”.

Still, impeachment is a serious matter, even if it should only be yelled out by six drunks in a bar.
What’s being suggested here, there and in all things Republican is that the president be impeached and, if convicted, be removed from office for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” which, among other things, include the Benghazi controversy, the 24-7 career maker for Rep. Daniel Issa, the Health Care Act, the immigration crisis at the Texas border, the releasing of terrorists, and various matters, including , well, just because.

What would happen if the House moved forward, as well they might if they gain control of the Senate? If you think the country is divided and the government is paralyzed now, watch what happens then.

It’s happened only two times in American history. In the aftermath of the Civil War, when Lincoln’s Vice President Andrew Johnson, who took over as president, was impeached for—essentially—pursuing Lincoln’s goals of reconciliation with the South and, in the 1990s, when President Bill Clinton was impeached in the aftermath of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Neither was convicted or left office.

The only president who resigned his office and left was President Richard Nixon. Forty years ago, he resigned on Aug. 9, 1974, because of the Watergate scandal, even as the House appeared to be preparing impeachment papers against him.

According to a CNN poll, two thirds of the American people are opposed to going forward with an impeachment of the President Obama. Over 50 percent of Republicans apparently favor impeachment, John Boehner notwithstanding.

Can’t we just impeach the entire government, or at least the House as a whole? Is “doing nothing at all” an impeachable offense? Wait and see.