Friday, May 17, 2013

Will The GOP Blow Their Chance To Get Obama?

Politico's Jim Vandehei explains to Mike Allen that John Boehner wants to avoid discussions of Watergate and impeachment right now, because that might make Republicans look like "fools" and "clowns". Yeah, well, there is that, huh? But is Boehner really dumb enough to think he can prevent that from happening—again?
So asks Politico, in a peculiar analysis, which paints Speaker of the House Boehner (R-OH), the J-word man, as the hand attempting to restrain intemperate voices of Republicans galloping to investigate anything they can about Barack Obama and his administration.

Mike Allen claims, in the "Behind the Scenes" talk he has with Jim Vandehei, that Boehner wants Republicans to "put a sock in it", meaning:
"[Boehner] wants them to stay under the radar, let Obama take his licks, not letting the issue become them, by making this overtly political, so these hearings that we are going to have in the weeks, months, perhaps years, which at the beginning they say they are going to focus on the substance, let us to the politics."
Vandehei responded, telling us what he believes Boehner is thinking:
"Speaker Boehner's thinking, listen, we've got three legitimate controversies here, all of which are built on fact, I need you guys to let the committees do their work, and don't go out there saying stupid things, about Watergate, about impeachment, things that make YOU look like a fool, make you look like a clown, make us look like a circus, and at the end of the day make the President look stronger, and make him look like a victim."
Allen then went on to say that Darrell Issa (R-CA), one of the main GOP House drivers in rooting around for impeachable offenses, doesn't want to "mess this up"—again—as Allen claims Issa did (he "looked dumb") last fall when he interviewed Secretary of State Clinton on Benghazi.

Allen says Secretary Clinton "hit the Benghazi questions out of the park."

This betrays the problem: most Republicans don't believe that is the case. Instead, they believe that everything Clinton said was an attempt to cover up some (never demonstrated) nefarious scheme of the Obama administration to do evil. The word "Benghazi" now equates in the minds of the manic conservatives with Kenyan-Socialist-Terrorist-BLACK-Usurper-Who-Killed-Our-Ambassader-With-Hillary-Bitch's-Help-Dude.

If Boehner sounds too skeptical, too reasonable, in advising caution to his GOP colleagues, he will look like a traitor to their crazy cause—which most definitely IS the impeachment of President Barack Obama.

Allen and Vandehei do make a good point when they explain that Boehner has something to fear from the standard operating postures of the Republicans in his House caucus. In the past, after all, Republicans managed to have an impeachment process, of a president (Clinton) who knowingly and intentionally lied to the American people (about sex of course), blow up in their faces.

Now, armed with the weapons of apparent actual government abuse—something perhaps impeachment-worthy (i.e, not just being a dumb lout, which Bill Clinton was)—the problem the GOP has is two-fold:

1. Even if they can demonstrate some systemic Big Brother operation going on in the halls of Obama's Executive Branch—since when has that really bothered anybody? People take government overreach for granted these days. They were told after all to just shut up and go shopping by President Patriot Bill (Bush), and Obama has unfortunately adopted that style of casual crushing of nebulous rights. If you're going to claim the Congress needs to go after Obama, the problem for the GOP is that the Democrats will have little reason not to also go after the still-despised regime of George W. Bush, something they should have done a long time ago.

2. The Democrats can easily deflect GOP investigations, by pointing out what a horrible job Republicans have done looking after the business of the people. Instead of working with President Obama to come up with an effective jobs package, for example, the GOP is investigating why Obama wasn't in Benghazi that night personally saving Chris Stevens.

The notion that Allen and Vandehei have that the process might come to be viewed as "overtly political" is silly. It already is viewed as overtly political, because nothing that happens in Washington D.C. isn't overtly political.

If Boehner were a strong leader, instead of the brand that he is, he would in fact do what Allen and Vandehei suggest, and he would command his Republicans to shut up and let the investigations and any facts they uncover convince the American people about something and its implications.

But Boehner isn't going to do that. He will, as I said, continue to placate the hard-right, hysterical, base of his party, which has been frantic to impeach Barack Obama since he took office. Now that they might have some flimsy basis for doing so, Boehner would be crazy to seriously try to tamp down their war chants for impeachment.

It will be a long hot summer in 2013, and the question is, will Barack Obama make it to the fall unimpeached? The Republicans say they are playing the long con on the American people, hoping to win the Senate in 2014, and then control the impeachment process on both sides of Congress. But will the Republican loudmouths allow Boehner to wait that long? Doubtful.

No comments:

Post a Comment