Grover Norquist, the Republican uber-activist, sat down with National Journal last week, and shared some thoughts on what he expects to see in Washington after the November elections. His use of the "I" word was rather striking.
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.... And, if you have a Republican president to go with a Republican House and Senate, 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.
By all indications, Norquist wasn't kidding. From the perspective of this leading GOP powerbroker, presidential impeachment is on the table in 2014 unless Obama extends Bush-era tax cuts.
There are three larger angles to this to consider. The first is that Republicans, 14 years after an impeachment crusade against President Clinton, seem a little preoccupied with the subject. Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) has raised the specter of Obama impeachment over DOMA; Fox News has brought up impeachment over immigration policy; Herman Cain wants to see the president impeached over the Affordable Care Act; and not too long ago, Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) said he likes the idea of impeaching Obama simply because "it would tie things up" in Washington for a while.
The second angle to keep in mind is that if GOP officials and their allies are serious about this, they might want to give additional thought to the meaning of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors."
And third, Norquist's impeachment talk may seem ridiculous on its face -- and it is -- but that doesn't change the fact that this is a powerful figure in Republican politics. It was, after all, Norquist's anti-tax pledge that played a direct role in scuttling any possible super-committee agreement.
The point isn't that presidential impeachment is a serious idea; it clearly is not. Rather, the point is it's unsettling to have a major GOP insider, with considerable influence throughout the party, talking up nutty ideas like this.
As Ed Kilgore explained, "[W]hen 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."
Leave a Comment:
Steve, I think you meant to say "...Norquist wasn't kidding."
Other than that, good post. Republicans love to toss firebrands around, and this is no different.
Ah, I see you corrected it, thanks.
Can we extradite Bush and Chaney to the Hague so they can be prosecuted for war crimes?
Pretty please?
With sugar on it?
;}
Yep. Watch small-minded people toss out big words they do not understand. Rank "impeachment" with socialist/communist/Marxist/Stalinist/Maoist, big/small government, job creators, national defense, pro-life, Christian nation, family values, traditional marriage, mainstream media, class war, polarizing, tax cuts, regulations, free speech, personal responsibility...
The Republican base is eagerly showing us all their ultimate plan should they lose the November election, as it appears they will do with Romney and Newt as the only two choices for the GOP nomination. The ejection of our fist black president from the White House by any means possible is the driving force of the modern Republican Party. This is their sole agenda, their only talking point. They've got to get Obama. And if impeachment is their next step following a hypothetical loss in a democratic election, what's the plan if impeachment fails? http://www.sunstateactivist.org
No idea, but I expect it to be something radical, reactionary and extreme. I've said it many times before and will probably say it many times more: the GOP has become rigidly ideological to the point of becoming totalitarian. Everything must be their way or else. I don't think their actions are limited by any consideration of the consequences.
(I should note that I think that there are plenty of sane, non-totalitarians in the Republican ranks, but that none of them are in positions of power or influence in the party.)
I know that you meant Norquist, not GingricK. Either way,... grrrrrrrrr.
So, Norquist is a simple minded social cretin who wields great power among like-minded Republican souls. He equates legitimate legislative outcomes with "high crimes and misdemeanors" and keeps a straight face? What an @!$%#!
Such irresponsible rhetoric and reprehensible understanding of our Constitution are two points to make as we yell in the faces of Norquist and his perverted cohorts while kicking them to the curb laughing wontonly at their demands we put up their insane understanding of what America is and should be all about!
Hey Grover - learn to humble yourself before your own God before you so arrogantly lash out against decency, dignity and democracy - you bastard child of privilege! -Kevo
And if that doesn't work, they'll just get the white hoods and sheets out of their closets and set fire to a cross on the White House lawn.
Republican racism isn't even "thinly veiled" any more. It's obvious, blatant and disgusting. I truly believe that, deep down in their hearts, Republicans don't care even a little bit about jobs, the economy, health care, or anything else in this country. I don't think they even care too much if the Democrats run everything. They are just frothing-at-the-mouth livid about the thought of a black president.
How else can you explain the lengthy list of ideas that the Republicans have proposed or supported, then opposed when Obama supports them, too? "We need to cut government," says the GOP. "OK, I'll cut government," says Obama. "Oh, no, no ... that's a terrible idea," says the GOP. Has any other president had to deal with this sort of total and automatic opposition to absolutely everything?
It's even obvious in their campaign plans. Are they talking about nominating the best possible candidate to go up against the Democrats, the candidate who best reflects the views of a majority of the party? No, they just what whoever they think can beat Obama. They would nominate a doorknob if they thought it could beat Obama. That's the rallying cry and that's all that matters.
Anything that delegitimizes President (Mr.?) Obama as the POTUS, I guess.
True.
You first have to show that a law has been broken before you can impeach.
Do you mean that defying the will of the Republican Party isn't a violation of the law? Next you'll be saying that Ronald Reagan wasn't the Second Son of God!
Reagan was a son ... ... .itch.
God had nothing to do with it.
Reagan
And died from Alzheimer's that he had while he was in office.
Reagan is a false prophet who's reach from beyond the grave is so pernicious to the health of the nation that the only remedy for it is to exhume his corpse, decapitate him and drive a stake through his heart. As publicly as frickin' possible.
Blasphemers! Don't you know that St. Ronald was the greatest president we've ever had, he never raised taxes, and his spirit is so powerful that it's able to stand behind all of the Republican candidates at once with its hand on all their shoulders? At least that's what I learned by listening to the Republican candidates.
This is when I pray for a real-life version of "Annie Hall," when Woody Allen pulls Marshall McLuhan out from the line in a movie theater. I just want to see Reagan rise up from the grave and say, "You know nothing of my work." And then, of course, go back to the grave.
Actually, the only intelligent thing Norquist said is at the end of the interview: "There’s no point in spending any time getting too worked up on imaginary conversations about imaginary things."
Like the wacky call for impeachment. Or the far-fetched idea that the GOP has any chance at all to win the presidency. You know, imaginary things like that.
It seems that "high Treason" would be more appllicable to Norquist. There are several definitions of treason but the one that fits Norquist is "the act or attempted act of working for the enemies of the state". His actions and words are acts that are working for the enemies of our Untied States. They give comfort to them and provide them with incentives to continue to do terrorist actions and give terrorist speaches in our country. BTW-my definition is from the New Webster's Dictionary and Thesaurus; so I didn't just make it up for convenience sake.
Return with me now to the storied days of yesteryear...
...when Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House of Representatives and impeached President William Jefferson Clinton - with a straight face - for lying to Congress about having an affair. Oh, the irony!
Grover Norquist needs to be quietly renditioned to The Hague to be tried before the World Court for crimes against humanity!
I cannot believe that the vibrant health of our country is in the hands of someone that is not even elected to a public office, anywhere. Norquist is damn lobbyist for Christ's sake. It is just unfathomable to me. How can one man have so much power over the American people? It is sickening, period! Who in God's name does this lobbyist think he is anyway? Norquist is one man that needs to be torn down, at least one notch.
Ahhh, poor Norquist, he wants to be relevant. He is not.
Nor does he have ANY power over the American people. NONE.
If our representatives make the choice of not honoring their oath of office (with their hand placed on the Bible, no less) to serve those they "represent," (you know, we the people who pay their salary, and, oh, little things like, lifetime healthcare benefits, pension, and a whole bunch of other perks) to instead be beholding Norquist's "pledge" - then we need to call them on it. Period.
Think about it, this is backwards. We did not send our representatives to DC to do Norquist's bidding. He can do his own bidding, whatever that is -- on his time -- not ours.
And, what is the big, bad, bogeyman that is Norquist going to do if this idiotic pledge is not honored? Let's see, his constant threat is to make the constiuents in the respective districts aware (i.e., plaster the airwaves with vile, negative ads, robocalls, etc) that they reneged on Grover's deal. Really, Grover, really?
And if your representative falls for this, then who knows what other corners they've painted themselves in which is taking away from representing us. If that's the case, they simply need to be voted out.
Norquist only has the "power" we let him have. In the meantime, a few questions for the esteemed gentleman. For instance: (1) How is your organization funded, (2) Who are your members and how many, (3) Does your organization receive any gov't funding, subsidiaries, etc, etc, etc.
Can you say "Glorious Loyalty Pledge Crusade" from Catch-22?
Grover Norquist works for wealthy and politically powerful individuals and organizations. He does not work for America. His job is to ensure every politician's fealty to the 1% he works for, the people the politician is supposed to represent be damned.
The pledge signers are whores. The one percent are their johns, Norquist is their pimp. And everyone else are the family members left behind in the cold who are just S.O.L.
Simple really. Republicans intend to abuse power whenever they get it. Even if they don't have power, they'll act as if they do and dare you to say they don't. But when they have less power, they always have to accuse the left of abusing THEIR power. It's all part of "the game" as far as they're concerned. Be criminals while accusing the other side of being criminals, and low-info voters won't know who to trust, and they'll stay home, which will make it much easier for the right to reclaim and keep that power. That is how they win.
Hey Steve, I think now that you have brought your prodigious blogging output to Rachel's place that the Maddow Blog page will need a redesign that allows viewers to find both your stuff and the output from the other bloggers. Your presence changes the dynamic on the home page pretty dramatically. Perhaps have it set up with the home page as is, but also have a header where individual blogger outputs can be viewed separately.
Ummmm, gee. I have enjoyed the Rachel Maddow Blog for a long time. If you want to change the site, wouldn't it be nice to check with the person that started the site??? Or the people who have been here from the beginning?
I would think that is at least polite.
The political parties and the media, the latter of which just received a rating of 48th in the world for free and fair press by the news without borders organization, are both so mired in corruption that the people of this country get this sad comedy/tragedy play instead of the real governmental system and news process we deserve.
Look at these Republican debates. Issue after issue that Newt and Romney and all the Republican candidates discuss are simply fairy tales. Especially when they discuss Obama. The ridiculous part is that the moderators in the media simply allow them to express these blatant falsehoods over and over again. This is what our American leader is supposed to be? Bush/Cheney lied blatantly to us to get us into a war and cost us thousand of lives and hundreds of billions in treasure and no one on the right or in the media seems to care about the lies the new right wing candidates are spilling during their campaigns? Sheer stupidity.
Unfortunately, it's going to take a lot more than getting just the money out of the system. The corporations and their owners the extreme rich completely own our government, justice system, law enforcement and media and until those institutions are completely revamped or overturned I'm afraid this country will only get worse.
Taking money out of the political system is one issue that needs to be tackled, no doubt about that.
But the bigger problems are the old electoral system and the district-thicketing (that basically allows representatives to choose their voters instead of the other way around) compounded by the no term limits for a congressional position. Until every votes count, there is going to be little change on anything because accountability is not going to matter.
I say if we are to have money spent in politics, we should at least make them suck up to all of us, not just to couple of swing states that doesn't even have anybody living in it anyway.
Amen to that.
I never thought anyone would stoke the fire in my belly more than Karl Rove. I was wrong. Grover Norquist is the devil. Evil or not, at least Rove had a brain.
So, letting the Bush tax cuts lapse would give the Senate (and presumably the House) to Republicans -- EVEN THOUGH 70% OF AMERICANS, DEMS AND GOPERS ALIKE, BELIEVES TAXES SHOULD BE RAISED?
Face it, the only reason that the GOP keeps pulling this tax cut routine is because if and when they attain power, they can completely ignore the people's needs and desires. We cut your taxes, didn't me, what more could you want??? Then they can do whatever they want with the money that comes in.
It's pure scam, a scam the people are waking up to.
IF YOU ARE AN AMERICAN BE AN AMERICAN.
Caroline Kennedy said of President Obama what inspired me: "The possibility of a campaign run by ordinary people determined to change our country for the better and willing to work as hard as necessary inspired him then, and it's what inspires me today." ...
My HOPE: Get our Democracy back. We The People are RESPONSIBLE to take Our Country back. End the CORRUPTION of MONEY can buy elections, pass the "Laws for Congress to sign". If you are an American be an American. America needs you and me to restore democracy, we and President Obama are the only HOPE.
It most certainly is a toy. To Republicans.
...just like a plastic bag is a toy to a child. Maybe we should just let them pull it over their heads for a while.
Child suffocation jokes? >.< Seriously?
Okay - not my best work. I don't wish death to Republicans; just to their way of thinking.
I like your revised statement much better. For the record I agree that they've gotten out of hand...my corrections have more to do w/ the my desire that we stay the sane party.
It's been going on for 15 years at least; I'm past the point of being unsettled.
Ever notice how Republicans are ALWAYS using their leverage to keep the Democrats from going after their Presidents for things that ARE impeachable offensives, but then are willing to threaten a Democratic President with impeachment for blowing their nose the wrong way?
Nancy Pelosi, "Impeachment is off the table."
Obama, "No one is above the law."
Reagan and Iran Contra.
Obama deserves what he gets for letting Bush Cheney and Co. get a free pass and providing them with legal shelter. If Rove bites his hand off instead of sitting quietly under some prison, Obama has no one to blame but himself.
The threat of impeachment is not an idea that should be used in a cavalier fashion. It is a serious process that would have the potential for tearing the country apart. The Constitution's phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was not intended to be used for mere political purposes. Any attempt to impeach Obama for his policies would trivialize the process. It is up to the Republican leadership to rein in such talk by making a strong statement. But I am not going to hold my breath waiting for such a statement because the leadership does not want to stop throwing "red meat" to Republican constituents.
Grover Norquist is a Johnny-one-note player who doesn't understand history but loves simplistic analysis and theatrical buzzwords like "impeachment."
He needs some serious lessons in the Constitution he claims to uphold and cherish. Impeachment is one thing, but as Clinton demonstrated, conviction and removal from office is another.
I dream of the day when an interviewer actually knows enough about the topic to bring one of these fools to their knees with embarrassment. That will never happen, but what a treat that would be.
I'd be happy with just an intelligent follow-up question. Or any follow-up question.
A. "... and then, if we don't get what we want, we'll impeach the president."
Q. "Uh, huh. So, are you enjoying your visit to our fair city?"
Ahhh the truth just keeps rowing out everyday and people thought Republicans were good. It's like they are worthless and so corrupt, they show how they will go to any means just to have their own personal agenda that is only for themselves which is the Rich people. I wonder how those fools who get hired by these rich bozos can ever stand to keep doing what they do for such dark concerns.
Why don't we just hand Bush and Chaney over to the fine people in the Hague and let them be tried for war crimes?
Because to do that, we would have to get the idea that we are just one part of a diverse and interconnected planet, rather than it's lord and master and unbound by the rules that fetter mere mortals.
Shhh Monk, stop Meddling.....these people don't want the truth, they want to be coddled, and told that it's OK to let seniors and veterans become homeless and die in the streets.
So long as they do it quickly.
"high crimes and misdemeanors."
I doubt you're old enough to remember, but Gerald Ford once said that "high crimes and misdemeanors" is anything that Congress decides it is.
If we're talking about impeachment, let's talk about dozens (hundreds?) of publicly elected lawmakers who signed a tax pledge for a lobbyist, and promised to do his bidding, and not follow the wishes and the needs of the people who elected them, who willing crawled into the back pocket of a guy who has never been elected to anything, and is answerable to no one.
At what point does Norquist's activity become associated with the word:
Sedition?
If he is calling for the impeachment of a duly elected president performing his duties, (did we have any of those from 2000 to 2007?) then we can call Norquist out for attempting to abuse the government.
Duh. Small enough to drown in a bathtub? And this differs from anarchy...how? Because a few people are getting fabulously rich because of it? And Milo Minderbinder's bombing of his own squandron on behalf of the Nazis was in fact a triumph for Capitalism to be celebrated in light of the profit he made from doing it.
Grover Norquist would have understood perfectly.