Should Obama Be Impeached?

That’s a thought that’s been floated by some on the right (former VP nominee Sarah Palin, in particular) but, I suggest, that’s a subject which is best ignored unless Barack Obama can be convicted.

(“Should” applies to preference.  “Can” is concerned with reality.  A proposal vs practical politics, if you will.)

Impeachment is a political activity - the bringing of charges against a political official (in this case the President) by the House of Representatives.  Ok.  The lower house of Congress is controlled by the GOP so a majority (as required) against President Obama is practical.

 

Yes, the President can be impeached.  But removal from office requires a conviction (by two-thirds) of the U.S. Senate.  The Democrats control the Senate.  Politically, ouster can’t happen.  It’s not practical.  So why generate distractions from defeating the Democrats in November?  The focus must be on punishing Obama’s Party for the failures, left-wing policies, and incompetence of the Administration.

Just imagine how an impeachment effort would look to the President’s backers and the liberal media.  It would be roundly castigated as an effort to oust a black president because he is.  The black community would be mobilized as if it were 2008 and conservative candidates would suffer the consequences.

Because an impeachment of President Obama can’t succeed in ousting him, what would the purpose be?  A quixotic quest is not only silly because of its non-existent chances of success but, far more importantly, is counter-productive due to its impact in motivating his supporters.

Sarah Palin, your time has passed.  Conservatives need politicians who think before speaking.