Political Animal

Blog

January 28, 2012 11:51 AM Norquist Looks Ahead

By Ed Kilgore

As screwed up as things are in Congress right now, it’s natural that nobody much wants to contemplate how much more screwed up things might be after the November elections unless one party or the other emerges with united control and something of a mandate. So it was interesting to read an interview Nancy Cook of National Journal conducted with everybody’s favorite right-wing commissar, power-broker and demagogue, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, about post-election scenarios:

NORQUIST: If the Republicans have the House, Senate, and the presidency, I’m told that they could do an early budget vote—a reconciliation vote where you extend the Bush tax cuts out for a decade or five years…. then they pass the [Paul] Ryan plan [on Medicare].
NJ: What if the Democrats still have control? What’s your scenario then?
NORQUIST: Obama can sit there and let all the tax [cuts] lapse, and then the Republicans will have enough votes in the Senate in 2014 to impeach.

Yes, “impeach.”

Now you have to appreciate that Grover is probably feeling a little long in the tooth lately, and perhaps impatient. With all the back-and-forth over who said and did what during the administration of St. Ronald Reagan, it’s bound to make him think back to his salad days in the early 1980s, when he was swaggering around Washington with a bumper sticker on his briefcase that read “I’d rather be killing commies,” an allusion to his pastime of hanging out with “freedom fighters” being backed by South Africa’s apartheid regime. Or perhaps he’s fondly remembering the later period when he was famous for harassing state legislatures and city councils to name things after Reagan.

Some of Grover’s more recent projects haven’t gone so well. One of his proudest accomplishments was dreaming up the Bush/DeLay-era “K Street Project” (memorably explained here at the Monthly by Nicholas Confessore); now Rick Santorum is taking flack from Republicans for his complicity in that shady scheme. And then there was Norquist’s effort to turn Muslim-Americans into a pro-Republican voting bloc (viz. the recent candidate debate in Florida, when a question from a Palestinian-American voter launched several of the would-be presidents into a lather of Muslim-bashing).

But when it comes to taxes and the long-term drive to “starve the beast” of the New Deal/Great Society legacy, Norquist still walks tall in the GOP. So when he lays out getting rid of Medicare as we know it, or a drive to impeach Barack Obama, as strong alternative possibilities for the years just ahead, we should probably pay attention.

Ed Kilgore is a contributing writer to the Washington Monthly. He is managing editor for The Democratic Strategist and a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute. Find him on Twitter: @ed_kilgore.

Comments

  • Bernard Gilroy on January 28, 2012 12:06 PM:

    We'll leave aside the fact that only the House an impeach? I suppose it's no surprise to see yet another rabid rightwinger ignore the Constituion they claim to love.

  • rbe1 on January 28, 2012 12:07 PM:

    Norquist is an idiot. Why report on what he thinks ?

  • jcricket on January 28, 2012 12:10 PM:

    Yes, please Mr Nroquist and your Norquislings, try to gin up support for shredding Medicare and Social Security, and try to impeach a president for wanting to protect it.

    Nothing sends the largest voting block in America to the voting booths faster than a threat to dismantle the safety net keeping them from sheer poverty and disease.

  • KurtRexCooper on January 28, 2012 12:12 PM:

    Well, let's hope the over rich GOP is forcefully reminded by the Dems this fall that they voted for the Ryan plan, supported Norquist, and strongly desire to destroy Social Security and Medicare. It's like AZ Dems should run on Jan Brewer cutting 110k off Medicaid and cutting the budget for organ transplants which allowed two people to die.

  • g on January 28, 2012 12:13 PM:

    Obama can sit there and let all the tax [cuts] lapse, and then the Republicans will have enough votes in the Senate in 2014 to impeach.

    So impeach the President because the Congress fails to vote on something? This is a novel idea.

    Grover does know it's Congress's job to extend or not extend the tax cuts, right?

  • dalloway on January 28, 2012 12:13 PM:

    Anybody else have a problem with Grover being the unelected POTUS? I mean, he has a veto over legislation just as powerful as Obama's, but he's accountable to nobody. I say label him America's Stealth Dictator and force his corrupt little ass out in the open where everyone can see it.

  • SadOldVet on January 28, 2012 12:14 PM:

    correction to Bernard...

    The House brings forth the 'articles of impeachment' and performs the prosecutor's role during the impeachment trial.

    The actual impeachment trial is held with the senators as the jury. Actual Impeachment, which has never been done, would be done by the senate.

    If otherwise, it would correct to say that both Jackson and Clinton were impeached. They were not!

  • Texas Aggie on January 28, 2012 12:15 PM:

    Seems to me that Norquist is a classic example of being so focused on a particular subject that he thinks everyone else is also focused on the same thing. He needs to realize that most people, while not liking the idea of paying taxes, feel that it is necessary in order to have a functioning government. In addition, people really do want a functioning government because they've seen what happens when government fails. Examples would be Katrina, the Wall St. conflagration, the foreclosure crisis, cost of education, the unemployment crisis along with the off shoring of jobs, the lack of any power center to counter corporations because the government no longer allowed unions to compete, the astronomical costs of education and medical care, ... The man needs to realize that he is becoming more irrelevant every day, and if he doesn't want to end up like crazy Uncle George in the upstairs closet, he has to change.

  • hells littlest angel on January 28, 2012 12:15 PM:

    It often amazes me that the American right wing's intellectual standard-bearers are so flat-out fucking stupid.

  • dalloway on January 28, 2012 12:19 PM:

    Sorry, SadOldVet. The term "impeachment" refers to the process, ie. the trial, at which an office holder may or may not be convicted. Clinton was impeached but not convicted. And that was almost as good, for the Newt-led Republicans, as removing him from office, ie. to be able to say "Clinton was impeached," because most people make the same mistake you do, and assume impeachment is the same as being convicted of wrongdoing. It is not.

  • beejeez on January 28, 2012 12:19 PM:

    Psst, hells: It ain't the standard-bearers who are flat-out fucking stupid.

  • Mimikatz on January 28, 2012 12:24 PM:

    Texas Aggie is on to something. Recent analysis shows that most voters don't despise taxes, in fact they by and large think what they pay is about right. But increasingly they are getting fed up at the way the tax code (like everything else) is rigged in favor of the wealthy. Extending the Bush tax cuts perpetuates that unfairness, and would likely lead to a Dem sweep in 2016, not Grover's preferred scenario.

    Obama could buy an insurance policy by promising Biden he could succeed Hillary as Sec of State, since she's said she's leaving, and picking a younger, more liberal VP.

  • navamske on January 28, 2012 12:28 PM:

    Both A. Johnson (not Jackson) and Clinton were impeached, meaning that the House voted to impeach them. This is an objective fact. Both were subsequently acquitted by the Senate. No U.S. president has been removed from office via the mechanism of impeachment. (Except indirectly: Nixon removed himself from office because he knew that otherwise the House and Senate would do it for him.)

  • Pal2008 on January 28, 2012 12:28 PM:

    Them is fighting words, bless his little heart.

  • Rich on January 28, 2012 12:32 PM:

    Norquist is a good example of the media's failure to report on who really has power in DC. He sis get some notice last year, but it's never been sustained. I'm sure he's one of the flaks who regularly provides "access", tips, etc. to journos and we all know they don't want to jeopardize that. The anti-democratic character of people him and the Kochs has never had the sustained coverage it has deserved.

  • lib4 on January 28, 2012 12:33 PM:

    The GOP "loves" America but hates
    1. Democracy
    2. Minorities
    3. Women
    4. Immigrants
    5. Gays

    What a bunch of thin skinned sore losers the GOP has become.

  • SKM on January 28, 2012 12:35 PM:

    These folks from the 'Right,' will do almost, well not almost, they will DO anything to have power.

    I was reading last night that Willard supports Scott Walker and John Kasich, and that after Scott Walker was facing recall, I've read that Willard sent him the maximum amount of $5000.

    I think it's time people stop to think what kind of country they want to live in. The GOP continues to cut/layoff public employees, but blame Pres. Obama for the unemployment. Fortunado of Puerto Rico endorses Willard, however, the peoples of Puerto Rico that live on the islands don't vote in our presidential elections, same as the people living on the islands of U.S. Virgin Islands. I think people need to look at the documentary, "Thunder in Guyana," to have a glimpse of what we are facing with using race/ethnicity in elections - this will forever destroy this country as they did in Guyana.

    My only question, how can the GOP claim to love this country and God (whom they've never seen) and hate all of the peoples of this country that are not exactly like them? Personally, I think these group of people are very dangerous - oh, and I've read that someone connected to Willard, I will just try to quote the headline as I remember it, "Mitt Romney's backer threatens BBC," anyway, the article says something along the lines that they 'had a file,' on a reporter Greg Palast - this right here is scary, to have a secret file on someone. Reminds me of how Willard looked into Gingrich's background to say that Newt had investments in Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac as well. What is this, people that may be opposition is being spied on and files accumulated on that person?

  • c u n d gulag on January 28, 2012 12:35 PM:

    I think Norquisling is a traitor an d should be charged with treason.

    He and his ilk are responsible for the decline in this country, which started even before "The Reagan De-evolution," going back to Nixon's degenerate Presidency.

  • Hedda Peraz on January 28, 2012 12:42 PM:

    Impeachment is for sissies.
    Execution is the Right solution.
    (And in Texas we surely do know how to do it right!)

  • WingerSays on January 28, 2012 12:46 PM:

    What's the problem?

    Everyone knows that raising taxes on the rich job creators constitutes a "high crime".

  • Mudge on January 28, 2012 12:47 PM:

    And notice old Grover is a big fan of reconciliation when convenient. Wasn't it unconstitutional when used for health care? If I remember correctly, the Repugs used reconciliation for the original Bush tax cuts and the intricacies of that process required that the tax cuts expire, as they did. That would seem to indicate that they cannot be made permanent using reconciliation, or they would have the first time.

    I can certainly be wrong, not being a beltway insider and all, but he does seem to be a bit thick and not at all knowledgeable about details.

  • SKM on January 28, 2012 12:53 PM:

    If the people don't start rejecting this type of speech, and continue to look at it as 'right-wing-nut-job,' talking and continue to ignore it, it will be at their peril.

    I will write this again, there's a video of Willard, "Mitt Romney Promises to Raise Retirement Age, Privatize Medicare and Slash Government Jobs At Koch Event," see this at http://kochwatch.org

    And as far as Willard telling a OWS supporter to go back to Russia - the day will probably come when people will wish they were in the countries he tells people to go to such as China, Cuba, Russia.

  • rrk1 on January 28, 2012 12:53 PM:

    I say label him America's Stealth Dictator and force his corrupt little ass out in the open where everyone can see it.

    Of all the asses in the world, his is the last one I have any interest in seeing, especially out in the open. And while it is certainly corrupt, it certainly isn't little.

    Precisely why the swaggering Norquist thinks he any longer has any clout is something of a mystery. With the Occupy movement not going away, and the ever clearer focus on income inequality, increasingly those intimidated officials who took his vow of never raising taxes have relented, and the likelihood of his signing up many new ones - with the exception of a few fire-breathing teabaggers - is remote. Basically his days as powerbroker, commissar, and demagogue are numbered.

    Now it's time to go after his big corrupt ass so he can do a little time in some federal hotel.

  • Grumpy on January 28, 2012 1:10 PM:

    Bernard Gilroy... I understand Norquist as saying that Americans will be so outraged by the return of Clinton-era tax rates in 2013 that, even if Democrats sweep in this year, they'll be tossed out in 2014, setting up impeachment & trial in 2015.

    More to the point, though, is that Norquist seems to think Obama should be (or even could be) impeached for allowing a law that Republicans voted for (the tax cut sunset) to take effect.

  • Rip on January 28, 2012 1:14 PM:

    No doubt that with Republicans in control of both branches, a continuation of the Bush tax cuts would sail through, not even facing the threat of a Dem. filibuster in the senate. And unsurprisingly, deficits will no longer be of paramount concern.

    The Ryan plan, or any plan that basically privatizes Medicare will not come into effect, even if a Republican senate got rid of the filibuster. They will do what they did in the Bush era, expand medicare to include private sector options that cost taxpayers more, but don't take away what they already have.

    Conservative fantasies that Obama will be impeached for anything are as realistic as Leftist fantasies that George Bush would be put on trial for war crimes when Democrats came to power. Meaning not at all.

  • Arlington BigFish on January 28, 2012 1:23 PM:

    "Or perhaps hes fondly remembering the later period when he was famous for harassing state legislatures and city councils to name things after Reagan."

    I still call it National Airport.

  • chi res on January 28, 2012 1:32 PM:

    I still call it National Airport.

    Good for you. Out in my neck of the woods, I still call it I-88. In a similar vein, I also still call it Comiskey.

  • cmdicely on January 28, 2012 1:40 PM:

    If otherwise, it would correct to say that both Jackson and Clinton were impeached. They were not!

    Clinton and Andrew Johnson were both impeached. Impeachment by the House of Representatives is similar to indictment by a grand jury -- its a formal charge laid against the office-holder. The trial on the articles of impeachment is held in the Senate, just as a trial on an indictment is held in a criminal court.

    No President has (but many lesser officials have) been convicted in a Senate trial on articles of impeachment, but both Jackson and Clinton were impeached.

  • jjm on January 28, 2012 1:55 PM:

    1. Does Norquist honestly believe that allowing tax cuts to lapse is grounds for impeachment in any universe? Just shows you how much of an insane monomaniac this man is.

    2. Why would he assume there would be GOP majorities in the House to impeach and Senate to convict? Another indication of his deep insanity.

  • Matt on January 28, 2012 2:01 PM:

    Christ, Grover, why wait? You've got the votes right this very instant in the House to pass articles of impeachment!

    C'mon, do it! Unless you're chicken, of course.

  • navamske on January 28, 2012 2:05 PM:

    @cmdicely

    "No President has (but many lesser officials have) been convicted in a Senate trial on articles of impeachment, but both Jackson and Clinton were impeached."

    Andrew Jackson was not impeached. Andrew Johnson was impeached.

  • Kathryn on January 28, 2012 2:08 PM:

    Arlington BigFish.......I'm a Springfield little fish and I still call it National too. When I here it referred to as Reagan I have to think for a couple of seconds as to what they're talking about and I like it that way. Norquist is an overfed, arrogant and supremely selfish pr--k, my prediction for him is by pass surgery.

  • T-Rex on January 28, 2012 2:22 PM:

    Kathryn and Arlington, I always refer to it as "senile actor airport." No one has ever had any trouble knowing which airport I mean.

  • Nick on January 28, 2012 2:36 PM:

    @Jcricket: Like to agree, but how does that explain Gov. Rick Scott? Half this country's voters are utter ignorant fools. 'Keep your government out of my Medicare!' That famous Teabagger cry says it all.

  • Joe Friday on January 28, 2012 3:09 PM:

    SadOldVet,

    You are quite correct sir.

    I realize many people are confused about this, including many in the modern media.

    Lower officials, like judges for example, are first impeached by the House, which removes them from their office, then they are put on trial in the Senate.

    With the POTUS, the House merely makes an accusation, and the trial occurs in the Senate. If he is removed from office, then he was impeached, if he remains in office, he was not. Contrary to conventional wisdom, neither President Andrew Johnson or President Clinton were impeached.

    The mere passage by the House of Representatives of 'Articles of Impeachment' does not constitute "impeachment", and one is not considered having been "impeached". Otherwise, Nixon would have had to have been considered to have been impeached as well. None of them were.

    The 'Articles of Impeachment' are only a formal title for a mere list of acussations, which do not constitute any guilt, and comprise only HALF of the process of a potential "impeachment". The executive is not "impeached" unless convicted as a result of a trial in the Senate.

    In regards to impeachment, Alexander Hamilton elucidated it quite well in Federalist No. 66:

    "the powers relating to impeachments are, as before intimated, an essential check in the hands of that body upon the encroachments of the executive. The division of them between the two branches of the legislature, assigning to one the right of accusing, to the other the right of judging, avoids the inconvenience of making the same persons both accusers and judges; and guards against the danger of persecution, from the prevalency of a factious spirit in either of those branches. As the concurrence of two thirds of the Senate will be requisite to a condemnation, the security to innocence, from this additional circumstance, will be as complete as itself can desire."

    Neither President Johnson or President Clinton were impeached. The attempts at their impeachments failed. If they had been impeached, they would have been removed from office.

  • navamske on January 28, 2012 4:00 PM:

    @Joe Friday

    I'm afraid you are incorrect. Both A. Johnson and Clinton were impeached. The House by a majority vote approved articles of impeachment against them. This is analogous to an indictment; in both examples, a trial follows. A. Johnson and Clinton, both under impeachment, were tried by the Senate and acquitted, meaning that they remained in office. Being impeached is not the equivalent of being removed from office.

    Other officials, such as current Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida when he was a judge, have been impeached and convicted, meaning they were removed from office. I don't believe the Constitution makes any distinction between impeachment of the president and the impeachment of "lesser officials," except that when the president is tried, the Chief Justice presides over the Senate. This is probably because the vice president, who is normally the presiding officer in the Senate, would have a stake in the outcome of any presidential trial (i.e., the possibility of his becoming president if the president were removed).

    Both A. Johnson and Clinton were impeached. This is an objective fact.

  • jheartney on January 28, 2012 4:32 PM:

    Christ, the Clinton impeachment was less than 15 years ago; don't you all remember anything about it? (I feel old now.) Yes, both Clinton and Johnson were impeached, but not convicted, although Johnson came pretty close.

    I fully expect an impeachment if Obama wins reelection and the GOP keeps the House. (I'm a bit surprised they haven't done it already.) The grounds for doing it will be irrelevant; for Republicans, impeachment is just an expression of infantile fury at being thwarted. It was meaningless when they did it to Clinton (though they did have Holy Joe running supposed Democratic interference for them), and it'll be even more meaningless when they do it again. But the voters won't like it.

  • Mark on January 28, 2012 5:05 PM:

    Excuse my ignorance of US government but this strikes me all very strange as an Australian. on what grounds could they impeach? What crime has been committed?

  • Caffiend on January 28, 2012 5:11 PM:

    Mark, I believe that they will charge him with "Presidentin' while Black."

  • Squeaky McCrinkle on January 28, 2012 5:31 PM:

    There are people who want to put Reagan's face on the currency, there were people who wanted the rules changed to elect Schwarzenegger president . . . there is no bottom to this cesspool, and people like Norquist bathe daily in it.

  • Rick B on January 28, 2012 5:33 PM:

    @Texas Aggie

    You are quite correct. Norquist is not only totally focused on low taxes and smaller government; he is extremely well paid to be so focused. I know much of his money comes from the Koch brothers and I'm sure they pay him well.

    Norquist and his masters, the Koch brothers, are a deep cancer on the American society.

    @hells littlest angel
    Hey, when you are very well paid to be stupid, then you will be what you are paid to be.

    @beejeez

    Bob Altemeyer, in his excellent book The Authoritarians analyzes the leaders of authoritarian groups separately from the followers. The leaders depend on the followers to put them into leadership, but there are two kinds of leader. One is the smart type (see Gingrich) who knows what is real but plays to the rubes. The other is a true believer (Michelle Bachman) who really believes the crap he/she pushes. The potential nominees for President demonstrate this quite clearly.

    Mitt is trying to play the rubes, but he is not very good at it since he has to break away from that game in the general election. Santorum seems to me to be one of the true believers, but he is also far from stupid - that is, he is no Bachman or Palin.

    Since Gingrich suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) he can be expected to be very bright and aware of what he is doing, but he has no empathy for anyone. Ask his wives. Or listen to him. He is a very bright user-of-people, and sees himself fitting quite well into the conservative-controlled Republican Party. A lot of Republicans clearly do not agree with him, but again, he is NPD and can never accept criticism. When questioned by the moderator he lashes out not just because it is a tactic to play to his audience, but more importantly because he is angered that anyone would dare to question him. He will always defend his grandiosity when challenged.

  • Joe Friday on January 28, 2012 6:25 PM:

    navamske,

    "I'm afraid you are incorrect. Both A. Johnson and Clinton were impeached."

    I'm afraid not.

    Alexander Hamilton disagrees with you.


    "The House by a majority vote approved articles of impeachment against them."

    They did as well with Nixon.


    "This is analogous to an indictment; in both examples, a trial follows."

    True.


    "A. Johnson and Clinton, both under impeachment"

    False.


    "Other officials, such as current Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida when he was a judge, have been impeached and convicted, meaning they were removed from office."

    Nope.

    You have that chronology wrong. They were impeached by the House, which REMOVED THEM FROM OFFICE, then they were tried and convicted by the Senate for their alleged crimes.


    "I don't believe the Constitution makes any distinction between impeachment of the president and the impeachment of 'lesser officials',"

    Alexander Hamilton disagrees.


    "Both A. Johnson and Clinton were impeached. This is an objective fact."

    Nope.

    ~~~

    jheartney,

    "Yes, both Clinton and Johnson were impeached"

    Wrong.

    They were not impeached, they both remained in office.

  • c4Logic on January 28, 2012 6:34 PM:

    First, you have to be a moron to be a Republican, today. Why does anybody try to make sense of what comes out of the mouths of morons??

    America's number 1 problem is the number of morons who can be programmed into voting against what the non-morons recognize as their own self interest.

  • Caffiend on January 28, 2012 6:48 PM:

    Sorry, Joe Friday, but impeachment refers to the act of the House voting to bring the charges against the official. Clinton and Johnson most certainly WERE impeached, they just weren't convicted by the Senate.

    As for Nixon, impeachment was imminent and he WOULD have been removed from office.

  • Kobie on January 28, 2012 7:09 PM:

    No, Joe Friday, you're wrong. Nixon was not impeached. The House Judiciary Committee had approved articles of impeachment against him; however, he resigned before the House could vote on them.

    Johnson and Clinton WERE impeached, because their articles were passed by the House and they went before the Senate for trial. That trial is "impeachment," not the act of removing one from office through that method.

  • Bill D. on January 28, 2012 7:20 PM:

    Mark, no actual crime is needed. They will make up whatever imaginary crime, with trumped-up evidence, they want to 'justify' the impeachment and conviction.

    These are not the Republicans of yore. These are quasi-fascists with no intellectual or moral integrity whatsoever. They make up reality as they go along as needed to justify whatever preconceptions they wish to have and whatever actions they wish to take, no matter how destructive of the Constitution and the nation, all the while claiming to be deeply patriotic and Christian.

    If they get in power again they will have their finger on the nuclear button.

  • navamske on January 28, 2012 7:32 PM:

    @Joe Friday

    I said: "I'm afraid you are incorrect. Both A. Johnson and Clinton were impeached."

    You said: I'm afraid not. Alexander Hamilton disagrees with you.

    I say now: Alexander Hamilton was long dead by the time of both impeachments. And yes, impeachments did take place in 1868 and 1998.

    I said: "The House by a majority vote approved articles of impeachment against them."

    You said: They did as well with Nixon.

    I say now: No, they didn't. The Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment against Nixon and sent them for consideration to the full House. By resigning, Nixon obviated the need for the House to consider the articles of impeachment.

    I said: "This is analogous to an indictment; in both examples, a trial follows."

    You said: True.

    I say now: If you acknowledge that that's true but continue to hold to the belief that impeachment is the equivalent of removal from office, then you must believe that an indictment is the same as a conviction.

    I said: "A. Johnson and Clinton, both under impeachment"

    You said: False.

    I say now: No, true.

    I said: "Other officials, such as current Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida when he was a judge, have been impeached and convicted, meaning they were removed from office."

    You said: Nope.

    I say now: It's a demonstrable, objective fact. Judge Alcee Hastings was impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate, resulting in his removal.

    You said: You have that chronology wrong. They were impeached by the House, which REMOVED THEM FROM OFFICE, then they were tried and convicted by the Senate for their alleged crimes.

    I say now: This is undeniably, objectively, demonstrably false.

    I said: "Both A. Johnson and Clinton were impeached. This is an objective fact."

    You said: Nope.

    I say now: Is too.

  • Hmmmm on January 28, 2012 7:35 PM:

    Grover Norquist:another way to spell "jackass".

  • Doug on January 28, 2012 7:35 PM:

    According to the Constitution impeachment and conviction are two separate acts:

    Article II, Section 4:
    "The President...shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
    Whichever poster described impeachment as correlating to an indictment was correct, the difference being that, at least under English law, which much of the Constitution was drawn from, the "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" may be political in nature and NOT, per se, criminal.
    Which, apparently, is the Norquistian view...

  • Texas Aggie on January 28, 2012 9:48 PM:

    Mark, he will be tried for "Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Gerald Ford, Nixon's second VP and president when Nixon resigned, once said that high crimes and misdemeanors are whatever Congress decides they are. So in other words, they can convict him of anything whether his actions were legal or illegal. As mentioned above, the real crime he has committed in the minds of the right wing is Presidentin' While Black.

  • dcshungu on January 29, 2012 8:50 AM:

    Answer:Both Bill Clinton and Andrew Jackson were impeached but not "convicted" and removed in the subsequent Senate "trial"...

  • Cal Gal on January 29, 2012 11:42 AM:

    Well, an Obama impeachment certainly WOULD put the two Senators from Maine in the hot seats (assuming Snowe doesn't get successfully TPed).

    And I'm SURE the Republicons would like President Biden much, much better than President Obama.

  • navamske on January 29, 2012 11:47 AM:

    @dcshungu

    "Both Bill Clinton and Andrew Jackson were impeached."

    Andrew Johnson. Not Jackson.

  • lgerard on January 29, 2012 3:25 PM:

    Please include the phrase "money launderer" in your future descriptions of Mr. Norquist. As in:

    "right-wing commissar, power-broker, money launderer and demagogue"

    Thanking you in advance

  • Joe Friday on January 30, 2012 12:23 PM:

    Caffiend & Kobie,

    Alexander Hamilton STILL disagrees with you.


    navamske,

    You actually posted: "Alexander Hamilton was long dead by the time of both impeachments." ???

    Good Grief. Speaks for itself.