Sullivan has been ranting about the imperial Presidency, so here is another serious proposal he can support (with the necessary modifications to make it more “reasonable”):
A prominent libertarian constitutional lawyer and civil libertarian has drafted an article of impeachment against President Obama over his attack on Libya, throwing down a legal gauntlet that could be picked up by some Congressional Republicans
Bruce Fein, a former Reagan administration official in the Department of Justice and chairman of American Freedom Agenda writes in his 15-page argument of Obama’s course that “Barack Hussein Obama has mocked the rule of law, endangered the very existence of the Republic and the liberties of the people, and perpetrated an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”
Fein is a small-government conservative who worked on the impeachment of President Bill Clinton and also called for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, and his work doesn’t represent the Republican Party line. But it comes as some Republicans on the Hill, led by Senator Rand Paul, object vociferously to Obama’s decision to strike targets in Libya without Congressional authorization.
“He’s been more bold than any other president,” said Fein, who said Obama has failed to secure congressional approval for his military action in a much more brazen way than previous administrations.
Why not? It’s just a starting point and now we can have that adult conversation about Presidential powers. WHAT IS THE DEMOCRAT’S COUNTERPLAN? WHERE IS THEIR PROPOSAL?
Course not. The Republican Party line is: 1) shut down the government 2) Obama gets a hummer 3) Profit!!!
Moore Award! Moore Award!
it’s really too bad that any credibility Sullivan might have had, was literally blown during the first 7 years of Bush’s pResidency… sad to see a grown man on his knees slobbering… but that was Sully.
If the Democrats could formulate a plan to do anything, we wouldn’t have to keep having these serious discussions. At least Pelosi has the sack to say, “I’ve talked with Leader Boehner, I’ve told him that his caucus is fucked and they can kiss my ass.” Oh, if Harry Reid and President Post-Partisan could/would only do the same thing.
Y’know, it ain’t actually that hard to balance the budget. Return some taxes to where they were when we had a surplus, stop occupying so many foreign countries, discourage TBTF banks and carbon production with some taxes, and we’re most of the way there.
Or, as Yglesias pointed out today, get employment back to normal levels, and we get more revenue and spend less on programs.
Sure, we have a moderate problem, but it’s nothing that’s all that hard to fix. It’s no reason to embrace the radicalism and decade of deficit increases that is the Ryan plan.
If the Dems handle it like they did Social security, their answer is “Medicare.”
According to the GOS, Pelosi’s answer to the BS one week continuance was pretty unequivocal:
Have I mentioned how much fun it is to vote when she’s on the ballot?
Clinton didn’t get congressional approval for Bosnia, nor UN approval. He did it with the Omnes Omnibus doctrine of NATO.
George Bush got congressional approval, but short circuited the second vote required by the UN security council.
Obama got approval from the Senate, at least, to go the UN route, and he did, and they did. The world in agreement via our signatory status for that body. You can argue about presidential war powers, and the need for a stand alone declaration of war, versus congressional delegation via a legal treaty. But to argue that Obama was “more bold” is just so much BS. It was created in part, the UN initiative, as well as early enforcement of the UN, largely by leadership of the US. But letting the euros take control, and us backing out of direct military actions is decidedly un bold, in comparison to his predecessors.
“Barack Hussein Obama”
Ah, just can’t resist, can they? Even a few years in…
Given this guy’s history, I can hardly Fein surprise he’s trying this.
Well, at least one Glibertarian realise this might effect him personally. God, they’re idiots.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! These guys just don’t quit.
Also, too, didn’t President McCain call for a no-fly zone? Once again, the GOP have found that sweet spot where they simultaneously back the president’s actions while attacking the president for doing what they wanted. Too bold.
Well, if anyone knows impeachable offenses, I would expect someone in the Reagan admin to, just via osmosis.
they’ll give it up just as soon as we give up “shrub” and “dumbya” and all our other pet names for W. fair’s fair.
That one’s too easy and too partisan. The Democratic counterproposal–to get American planes out of flying missions and bombing–has already happened. There’s very little for Congress to approve anymore. (Which may have been John’s point, I don’t know.) If Congress wouldn’t impeach over FISA violations which went on for years, they look foolish impeaching over this.
(Dear God, clean the house before John decides to stop ignoring you. Listen to the Red Sox. Anything.)
Just Some Fuckhead
Censure, but we’ll meet halfway on impeachment passed in the house but stopped in the Senate. That’s bipartisanship!
John, has anyone told you you’re schizophrenic? Earlier today you were posting about how Sullivan no longer deserves to be taken seriously in policy discussions. Since then, you’ve written rants about several of his articles. You need to accept that when somebody is no longer worth taking seriously, you should either stop reading them or move them to your “Blogs We Monitor And Mock As Needed” category. It’s time to do one or the other for Andrew Sullivan.
“libertarian constitutional lawyer”
Cf. military intelligence, compassionate conservative etc, etc
Furthermore, I notice that Sullivan still hasn’t been moved to the “Blogs We Monitor And Mock As Needed” category.
apropos of nothing
look foolish to whom?
One word for you asshole: Grenada.
Why Democrats will NEVER be allowed to “fight back”
ETA: Also pay attention to the Jake Tapper-Brian Beutler exchange on Twitter if you follow them, it’s telling
BTW. haz Sully had his afternoon tea and crumpet yet? WE await the news.
Yep. It is their tell.
Probably forgot to denounce Stalin or condemn the Broccoli Mandate.
But really, I got nothing.
@cleek: Yup. Really hope they just go all out for 2012
ifwhen the primary is a crazyfest. Think TBogg had a post suggesting that the GOP just use the picture of Tupac and his buddies. We’re alllllmost there.
Jesus, what a dick. Because pointing out that cutting off their medical care will literally kill seniors is exactly the same as claiming that the ACA will “kill” jobs.
While it’s important to continuously press the Village on their obtuseness and lack of any substantial interest in having a policy discussions based on empirical evidence, the inanity of Dave Weigel just has to be taken for what it is:
What did Wasserman Schultz say that was so “uncivil,” you ask?
Of course, who gives a fuck about wether the claim has any legitimacy or evidence to back it up? Nope, just be sure to chide people for having the fortitude to acknowledge reality for what it is. So on that note, motherfuck Dave Weigel.
And more importantly, I really don’t want any Republicans to be fond of the DNC Chair. They should hate them with an undying passion. Always and forever.
what’s really amazing is how few people recognize/admit that any savings from blowing up medicare (be that idea good or bad on its own–bad, BTW) are completely offset by tax cuts. Straight up tit-for-tat.
Any deficit reduction is, as the ever-shrill Krugman points out, based on other virtually unattainable–hell, unimaginable (nearly 75% of federal spending)–cuts in spending. Yet the plan doesn’t actual explain how any of those cuts are to be brokered. Because you can’t actually generate a plan that can explain how that would work in the real world.
The utter ridiculousness of the ‘plan’–and the fact the hollow men like Sully are taking it seriously–lends credence to something my friend the Suburban Guerrilla said:
Can you and Punchy just shoot me in the head already?
Seriously. In the 2010 election I had to refrain from putting smiley faces and exclamation points near her name when I filled in the ballot, or “NANCY SMASH!!!!” or other such words of admiration and encouragement.
And to think I had silly friends who voted for Cindy Sheehan over her in 2008 or whenever it was that she ran.
@<a href="#comment-2516609General Stuck:
This is really one of your best lines ever.
A high crime and a misdemeanor would be two articles.
Bruce Fein has made a mistake in doing this. I hope Issa picks this up and runs with it.
I would nice if the media didn’t try to discredit and destroy her while fellating Republicans for doing the same damn thing.
I’m probably wrong on this, but didn’t Fein endorse Obama in the general? Colin Powell is still the most famous “Obamacon,” I think.
Don’t know what to make about the Hussein part, but I don’t know, am I the only one to retain a soft spot for Fein, due to having seen/heard him OFTEN go on Air America, or Democracy Now, and rake Bush over the coals (in verbiage, not in manner, he was quietly forceful, almost sunny, but again cogent arguments). C&L featured him a few times. I have no doubt we would’ve seen him on the Sunday morning talk shows laying it out as brilliantly there. But for a few assholes named George and Bob and Tim/David, who are far loathsome-er than Fein.
Foolish to the people who approved of intervening in Libya.
I would say foolish to history, but history might approve of Congress taking back some of the war power.
And as JSF said, foolish to the American public if there isn’t two-thirds of the Senate to convict him.
This is such a roundabout way of getting this question before Congress.
Why doesn’t Rand Paul just introduce something? Like a….law? He has real power now. He’s no longer a whining irrelevant, purely abstract libertarian.
Because he has no clue what he’s doing, and no real interest in governing?
Feingold was good at… law-making. Too bad conservatives chased him out, and replaced him with some ignorant teabagger.
If they want Congress to take back their constitutional role, they could, oh, I don’t know, ask a member of Congress?
You know what? That would be nice, but it is also totally unrealistic. They are going to attempt to discredit her, they will very much attempt to destroy any and every ounce of credibility she has busted her ass to earn, and they will absolutely enable Republicans engaging in flagrantly destructive, hypocritical behavior. Those are the fucking facts and we all know it.
So, what are we going to do in the face of this opposition? Are we going to hope that they treat us with a decency and respect that they will never afford people advocating our position? Or are we going to say “No, but seriously. Go fuck yourselves” and get to work exposing these clowns for the craven, lying, sacks of shit they are?
I get it, the Traditional Media is a massive impediment to pushing forward liberal ideas and policies in this country. But to borrow a page from Nancy Smash!:
@4jkb4ia: Foolish to Americans? That’s a really high bar to reach.
Sully’s latest, with the pie chart. wow. it’s just mind-blowing.
@feebog: Fein was gone by then. He has suggested that he thinks Reagan violated the War Powers resolution. There were by the way calls to impeach Reagan over Grenada, but O’Neill squelched them.
Yale professor Ackerman largely agrees with Fein, although he is not the bombthrowing showboater Fein is.
yeah, and how’d that work out?
Uncle Clarence Thomas
Ya, those other presidents broke the law with impunity, but my how things suddenly change when it’s a black man in the White House breaking the law.
Keeping the heat on Sullivan and his over-the-top fawning over a budget whose implications he clearly doesn’t understand (therefore it must be “serious”) has been a surprise bonus! of this blog today. The Let-Them-Eat-Cake-Budget must be loudly and repeatedly exposed for its potentially devastating impact on the young, the disabled, and the elderly. It is no joke.
But Sullivan is.
The Math requires a Serious attitude.
Just Some Fuckhead
Supposedly Reagan gets a pass on Grenada because he exercised the “imminent danger” excuse in the third clause of the war powers resolution. The imminent danger was to US students there, of course, not an “attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”
But whatever. Would it have killed Obama to use special Republican bullshit while he does special Republican stuff?
@kay: Hah! Asking a member of Congress to change the behavior through legistlative action is exactly what some pinko, big-government liberal would want them to do! Much better to sit back and allow the free market to
help them fundraisefix this issue of paramount importance.
@Uncle Clarence Thomas:
Those other Presidents didn’t break any law, but this guy seems to think they did.
In some ways, the lack of a Democratic alternative is apples and oranges. A Democratic alternative for the budget would have to address health care costs, and the party doesn’t agree on how to do that. Anything Ryan would do to mitigate repealing ACA in terms of health care costs isn’t part of a budget bill.
Just Some Fuckhead
One of you ACA geniuses will have to explain to me how Ryan’s “Obamacare For Everyone” is a bad thing when it was a really good thing not too long ago.
Gosh. I thought John was playing up the positive reasons of the Jake Tapper / Andrew Sullivan world where Arab Palestinian children kill their parents by hiding in civilian homes.
@cleek: lol, love your fractional 2rds…
The Clinton impeachment looked foolish to the public as defined by a majority in polls.
Isn’t the War Powers Resolution the law at issue?
One good thing about the Ryan plan is that at least it has all the wingnut blogs on memeorandum distracted from their regular trivial inanity.
Oh how I wish we were the same country we were in 1999.
Sullivan and Associates “Give the power back to Congress”
Sullivan and Associates: “give the power back to Congress!”
Who’s missing from this fight? Congress, right?
Is Bruce Fein like the ombudsman for the voiceless and powerless members of Congress, who would object if they only knew how?
I don’t think this is in the Constitution.
The line says Sully writes at least three rebuttals to this post without ever using John’s name. I’m taking the over.
Crawlspace that dude — crawlspace him good.
@SST: The weird thing is they always leave out the “II”.
I don’t know. I think so. I haven’t read the Article of Impeachment. Maybe Rand Paul should hire a lawyer.
Looks like Bruce Fein is available.
Paul could barter with him, and give him an eye exam in exchange for Senator training. That’s a free market solution.
@4jkb4ia: Another alternative that would have substantially addressed the debt/deficit would have been to demand that the Bush tax cuts be allowed to expire.
Good god, I’ve been unhappy with this on policy and strategery grounds, but certainly not for the reasons Bruce Fein, Amnesiac Cobag of Principle, has coughed up here.
I have two more words with a hyphen in between for this self-righteous Reagan administration fucknozzle: Iran-Contra. I guess the reason that explicitly violating a law passed by Congress in order to do business with Ayatollah Khomeini and arm death squads in Central America was less brazen was because Ronald Reagan’s middle name wasn’t “Hussein.”
For that matter, I have four more words for this Reagan-fellating glibertarian: Operation El Dorado Canyon. Could Mr. Fein point me to the formal declaration of war that preceded President Reagan’s authorization of Libyan airstrikes? Because if briefing a bipartisan group of lawmakers right beforehand was sufficient for Reagan, then it was sufficient for Obama, too.
Yes, I’m glad Fein decided that George W. Bush’s conduct rose to the frightening level of lying about a blow job, but this is just ridiculous.
Um, what? The Affordable Care Act passed and is now the law of the land.
Was that a serious question? Maybe you didn’t understand that I was paraphrasing Nancy Pelosi, and that she didn’t actually use the term “empirical evidence and information”? That the actual quote says “health care reform”? Because otherwise, that seems like some pretty poor snark.
I see. It’s Obama’s black attitude that’s the problem.
@kay: Yeah. I wouldn’t know, but I can only assume that being deeply crazy or deeply Serious is an activity that takes up hours upon hours each and every day.
Therefore, the responsibility to argue on Congress’ behalf must fall to courageous, clear-minded, freedom-fighting beard lovers like Andrew Sullivan. Or something.
Well, then, I guess he could have drafted a fifteen-page article of impeachment as a private citizen, couldn’t he?
I’m pretty sure that’s what he meant.
If the Democrats had proposed gashing the military budget and raising the top tax rate 10% (Ryan cut it 10%) would Sullivan and the village take that as a “serious” proposal? Cause Ryan’s budget is “serious” even though the math doesn’t work and it is just a republican wish list. The important thing in Sullivan’s imaginationland is the Dems need to match these cuts in a “better” way. If these cuts are not made, we are all doomed so stop demagoguing this plan’s flaws and match his made up math with real solutions.
@Midnight Marauder: I meant via-a-vi the media.
The bill passed…barely, but the media continued their relentless assault on it up through the elections
I think conservatives in Congress don’t want the power, or they would take it. They have a majority.
Yelling at the executive a lot probably isn’t going to work. I saw one conservative House member posted a spirited objection on Facebook, so they’re getting warm.
I’m just not seeing any of this “process” they’re using in my breast pocket copy of the Constitution, are you?
Ah, I see now. But again, I bring you back to what actually matters in the end for real people in the real world struggling with real problems.
All this other shit:
is relevant, no doubt. But none of it trumps the fact that we made the Affordable Care Act the law of the land. All the assholes at Politico and MSNBC can’t change that, no much how much they bloviate.
Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal
my question for everyone who is calling balls and strikes on what is or isn’t a serious proposal, why is cutting defense by 350 billion, not a serious proposal…the spending would still be at the combined level of the next 5 biggest budgets for military spending in the world.
i really need to hear people explain why the military budget has to be where its at. most of the other things people are suggesting we cut, there is at least an explanation why we shouldn’t.
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Because Ryan’s plan removes all of the consumer protections in the ACA, like not letting insurance companies cancel sick people’s policies with flimsy excuses or requiring them to spend 80 percent of their income on health care.
So, yes, Ryan’s plan is exactly like Obamacare in the same way that being thrown out of an airplane at 20,000 feet is exactly like jumping out of one wearing a parachute.
@kay: No. But I’ll admit that I haven’t been watching particularly carefully, because I haven’t had as much time as I’d like to read. Plus, the news that I get is always a review, because I’m on an eight hour time difference with the States.
I’d definitely agree that Republicans don’t want power to make substantial difference in governing. They focus a lot more on the winning part, as I see it. I don’t think they have that much interest (beyond scoring rhetorical points) in curtailing a power that they like to have on the table and that a significant, influential portion of their base & elites favor. So, yeah, I’d agree that they’re not big on the “process” part and that probably doesn’t surprise you, me or very many other people around here.
None of the guys did it while black, duh.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Mnemosyne: Well there’s yer Democratic alternative then. Keep the protections in ACA, Obamacare for everyone. Would that work for you?
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Works for me. It’s not like the ACA is the be-all and end-all and can never, ever be altered or improved. If that was the case, you’d still have half the population not covered by Social Security.
What the fuck is a small government conservative. Is that like an anarchist, some bullshit fantasy land drug trip shit?
I think the government should be smaller. Let’s make less government. *hands are wide* Here’s the government. *pushes hands together* Not quite *closer* Little more *closer* That’s it. That’s just right for Daddy.
Sully and “Blogs We Monitor and Mock”:
Sully gets these awful hopeless passions, but then his readers or time sometimes talk him out of the wholeheartedness of them. Sully’s passion in this case is really for the debt, so you might be able to reason with him that the Ryan plan makes no sense and then he will fall in love with the next thing that comes across the table.
(Red Sox have stranded a runner at third for the third inning in a row.)
Ha! true dat.
@4jkb4ia: I am so happy that NZ internet is too shitty to support Sox livestreams. Getting swept by Texas is one thing. But losing to Cleveland? Gah
They have to wake up.
And look here, Sully approvingly links to Catherine Rampell saying that there are plenty of serious plans but no political will
We should talk him into a Sarah Palin presidency…you know…as a starting point for debate?
We’ll see how he reacts then.
@AAA Bonds: it’s someone that only wants the parts of the government that will do exactly what he wants… and usually they’ll blow the size of gov. up to sizes previously unseen…. ie Reagan, Bush I & for super-sized idiocy Bush II(diot)
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Seniors already have the type of healthcare system we want for everyone and Ryan wants to take that away from them.
Obamacare was a step in the direction of getting what Seniors have. Will they survive with Obamacare? Yes. Will it be better than what they have now? No. But for the rest of us, it’s better because we didn’t have Medicare to start with.
Let mlb.com tell the story:
Michael Brantley lines into a force out, fielded by third baseman Kevin Youkilis. Travis Buck scores. Matt LaPorta out at 3rd. Jack Hannahan to 2nd. Michael Brantley to 1st. One out.
This came about because Jason Varitek didn’t tag the runner when Youk threw home.
As I typed this, Asdrubal Cabrera hit a 3-run HR.
Just Some Fuckhead
No, clearly it isn’t.
@Just Some Fuckhead: That’s your opinion.
Just Some Fuckhead
@OzoneR: No, at the moment, it’s simple fact.
The democratic party proposal consists entirely of wringing their hands.
The thing about Bruce Fein that sticks in my head is that he was the go-to guy in 2000 when the cable news channels needed a self-described Constitutional scholar and pencil-necked apologist explaining over and over why the Bush v. Gore decision was a brilliant legal masterpiece.