WDEL Blog: Allan Loudell

And just who would benefit from President Obama's impeachment & removal?

No matter how much the establishment G.O.P. tries to head off impeachment talk - in the belief that impeachment would only boomerang against the Republicans - some fiercely anti-Obama Republicans will not be silenced.

Impeachment is still nearly unimaginable in the House, and conviction in the Senate is inconceivable (although who could predict, if the Republicans increased their majority in the House, and captured control of the Senate?), but take a look at this tongue-in-cheek column from Politico's Roger Simon.

Simon reminds us who would become the next President of the United States.

You can hear my interview with Roger Simon...

Audio Here

And read his piece in POLITICO...


Posted at 7:50am on July 29, 2014 by Allan Loudell

<- Back to all Allan Loudell posts

Comments on this post:

Mike from Delaware
Tue, Jul 29, 2014 8:41am
It would appear that the G.O.P./TEA folks just can't stand to win an election. As the writer noted, unless the G.O.P. make some serious gains in the Senate to take control and hold on to their House control, they'll never succeed in impeaching Obama. So why bring this up BEFORE the 2014 election? That would energize the DEMS to come out and vote in November. BAD MOVE for the G.O.P. Let sleeping dogs lie. Same with Boehner's lawsuit, stupid and could cost you the 2014 election.

I agree... the only person to benefit is VP Biden. It would be historic in that Joe would become the FIRST President from Delaware. As the writer suggested, this could keep Hillary out of the race as she'd be running against a sitting DEM President. The TEA/G.O.P. see Biden as totering ole Uncle Joe, but he's got a lot more going for him mentally than you give him credit for. If he did become President, my guess is he'd do a decent job and has enough charisma that electing him out in 2016 might be rather difficult to do. So TEA/G.O.P., be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it.

G.O.P./TEA, it's far more important to win the 2014 mid-term election and take control of the Congress so you can do the things you want, rather than staging another theatric act that will not get you the results you want. Even if you get Obama impeached by the House [did that to Clinton too], he wouldn't be removed by the Senate, so big deal. More taxpayers' money wasted on this three-ringed circus. Now, if you're willing to pay for this with YOUR own personal money, then knock yourselves out, but please there's already plenty of government waste of tax dollars, don't add to it with this nonsense.

In our politically correct world, also note that many minorities, not just black, would see this impeachment as racial, making it more difficult for minorities to ever vote Republican, and make no mistake, if your party is going to win elections in the future, you'll need every minority vote you can get. So again, why shoot yourself in the foot just to feed some red meat to the extreme TEA party wingnuts? Seems foolish to me.

Tue, Jul 29, 2014 9:08am
The president is pushing the idiot Republicans to try impeaching him because he knows they will not succeed in dethroning him... and in the process, the Democrats would rally to vote in the 2014 mid-terms (something they could not do otherwise)... and the Senate would remain in Democrat control.

IMHO, he has done many impeachable offenses against our country.. but there simply isn't enough evidence to tie him to any, and (without the Senate) nothing will happen.

IF the president does enact amnesty next month via Executive Order (while Congress is on break)... I think that the calls for impeachment will grow, the Republicans will lose the Senate, and we lose our country.

Looks like Dinesh D'Souza just may have been right about our bleak future for 2016.

Mike from Delaware
Tue, Jul 29, 2014 10:38am
EarlGrey: It's a shame that more of the TEA party folks aren't more like you. Unfortunately, far too many TEA folks are "wingnuts", and as a result hurt your movement's chances of success.

They can't seem to see the long-term goal, winning 2014 and 2016. They can rant and rail against Obamacare all day/night, but until they control both houses of Congress AND the White House, they're just blowing smoke. They are the party out of power, other than in the House.

What they should do is come up with a better alternative plan to Obamacare that would provide decent health-care for all. Then run on that in 2016. Sadly, the only thing they come up with is Health Savings Accounts. Most folks don't have the extra cash to stash in such an account, so only the wealthy would benefit from such a system, which just adds to the belief that G.O.P./TEA folks only care about the upper 2%, and don't give a hoot for the lower 98%.

Tue, Jul 29, 2014 12:19pm
Current top Drudge story is Boehner has said NO to impeachment and said the ones forwarding such rumors are desperate Democrats trying to boost turnout for the Mid-term elections.

Tue, Jul 29, 2014 8:48pm
117 undocumented/unaccompanied/non-English speaking "children" are being placed in The Delaware school system...the DE educational system was already horrible and I doubt this will help improve the educational system for Delaware students...thanx Gov. Markell (sarcasm).

Tue, Jul 29, 2014 9:54pm
If all we're going to get in the Senate this fall is a majority of establishment Republicans and no TEA, then I'd rather vote for a communist party candidate so I can get the real thing rather than just a bunch of wannabes.

Mike from Delaware
Wed, Jul 30, 2014 8:14am
So Mrpizza: You haven't learned a thing since 2010 with Christine O'Donnell. Better to have a RINO who will vote with your party 75%s of the time [Mike Castle] than DEM Chris Coons who will vote with your party 0% of the time.

It's attitudes such as yours that are the reason the TEA movement is doomed to fail. You want it 100% your way all the time, every day. THAT is not reality. Even our Founding Fathers didn't agree totally on everything, and COMPROMISE is what got our Declaration of Independence and our Constitituion written and passed. So in one sense, you EXTREME TEA folks are NOT following the Founders at all.

Wed, Jul 30, 2014 9:30pm
IF 0bama uses his Executive power to pass amnesty next month (while Congress is on break) in attempt to entice/dare Republicans to impeach him (which they don't have the votes for)...it could backfire for the Democrats big time IF the Republicans use the president's abuse of power as reason to vote out all Democrats who sided with him. So, if the R's use their brains, they can gain even more seats than expected in the mid-term elections... but if they pursue impeachment, the R's will lose big time in 2014.

Mike from Delaware
Thu, Jul 31, 2014 8:34am
EarlGrey: I agree, but the G.O.P./TEA party would need to court other voters than just their own. Some suggestions:

So to collect Independent voters such as the Baby Booomers, who do vote, they need to make loud and clear, in no uncertain terms, that they will not change Social Security benefits, or the age that you can start collecting for those 55+, but will come up with a plan to keep SS solvent so it will be there for those younger than 55.

They also need to offer a better plan than Obamacare that provides health-care coverage for all Americans. That could be as simple as working folks go into Medicare and the unemployed and poor go into Medicaid. That probably would save tons of money as those systems are already working well and would eliminate the layer of government that Obamacare created. It also would put the insurance industry out of health-care, another fine thing to do since their profits still come out of our pockets thus helping to make our healthcare costs higher.

They also need to make women comfortable that the G.O.P./TEA party won't take away their ability to get birth control and abortions [this one issue keeps many women from ever voting for the Republicans]. As long as the Supremes say it's constitutional, there's not much the Feds can do, as it seems to depend more on local states to decide how available abortion services will be within their own state. So don't make it an issue for the Prez or Congress; that's a vote-killer.

Come up with a plan to give those illegals already here who are employed here [so they are workers, not welfare wannabes] a path to citizenship that might take 10--12 years [obviously their spouse and minor children get to stay], where they all must learn English. The unemployed illegals and any who have broken laws other than being here illegally get deported back to Mexico. You get the idea.

THEN I believe the G.O.P./TEA party has a real shot of a big win in 2014 and 2016.

Thu, Jul 31, 2014 9:49am
Mike: I know your top issue is Social Security...no one in either political party wants to change the bennies for those 65+ (only for those who are younger...like me), but if no changes are made the Baby Boomers will eventually have their benefits reduced/cut due to the mishandling of the "retirement funds" by the government.

You might find this article interesting:

"Social Security and Medicare’s generational high-jacking has become “the third rail of politics” in large part because seniors want to believe that they paid their own way. But they have not. They have only paid for part of what they have gotten. The rest has indeed been a Ponzi scheme. And as Social Security is already revealing, the future cannot be put off forever, however much wishful thinking is involved. Some are already being forced to confront the exploding pot of IOUs involved, and it will get much worse."

Thu, Jul 31, 2014 9:56am
As for the other issues...there are multiple ACA replacements offered by different Republican representatives...they need to decide on one, uniformly support it and clearly explain why/how it's better...Republicans stink at communicating their policies (which allows them to be demonized and accused of things like waging war on women)...there is no war on women (at least not by Republicans).

Mike from Delaware
Thu, Jul 31, 2014 10:48am
EarlGrey: Social Security was not a ponzi scheme. When enacted in 1932, first benefits went out in 1936... there were far more younger workers paying into the system than old people collecting. The program worked as designed, as an insurance plan. You pay your premium each month you work [in my case, it will be 47 years when I turn 66] and then when you pass the age threshold, you collect the benefits.

The program has worked well for 75 years, better than most other plans launched by government OR business.

The problem is the U.S. is not the same nation it was in 1936. Since 1972, when abortion became legal, we've aborted 50 million future taxpayers, who'd have been paying into Social Security. People are having far smaller families today than we did in 1936, meaning fewer younger workers. Old people live longer. So those things make a difference.

Other things that happened are due to the politicians, who never have to answer for their screw-ups. In the 1950's, additional benefits were added to Social Security such as survivior benefits which helped to deplete the trust fund; also Congress - both G.O.P. and DEM - helped themselves to the Social Security Trust Fund for other things. So the system worked as designed and would have had plenty of money had members of Congress kept their greedy meathooks off that money. So Congress is the real culprit in why Social Security is hurting.

I agree that for you younger folks, the program needs to be changed so it can be there for you, but it's too late for the rest of us. We've done our part faithfully and expect the government to live up to its part.

All the government has to do to fix Social Security - so it will be solvent into the next century - is simply raise the Social Security tax so that it doesn't cut off at $110K Salary gross, but $200K. You and I wouldn't pay an extra dime as we make below the cut-off as it is today, but all those folks pulling in 6-figured salaries would be paying a tiny bit more, but that tiny bit more would make the difference.

Sadly, many Republicans have hated Social Security because it is a Democratic plan started by FDR. So they want to get rid of it, but so far, thankfully, haven't been able to muster up the votes to try to do that.

EarlGrey, your party would rather cut benefits to old folks than raise taxes on the well-to-do, whom it won't hurt at all. That is just plain wrong, so as long as the G.O.P./TEA party won't strongly make clear they will not mess with Social Security for those 55+, then they'll not get my vote. Many older folks need that Social Security check. These aren't Welfare bums who've sponged off the taxpayers, these are folks who've worked their entire lives paying taxes too, are simply old and no longer able to work. Not everyone sits at a computer desk all day. I use a computer for a small part of my job; I repair instrumentation. So there is some physical parts to the job. Others have very physical parts, and as your body ages. you'll find out that what you easily did at 30, 40, and even 50, starts to become more difficult at 60.

The G.O.P./TEA should want to avoid being labeled as the party that wants to return our elderly folks to the poverty they endured prior to 1936, when many elderly people were starving and living in poverty. Is it any wonder that so many folks liked FDR, he really helped folks who needed the help. Sadly it seems that today's G.O.P./TEA party has the attitude of too bad so sad for you if you're hungry, or needing a helping hand or getting the Social Security you've worked your entire life to earn. Yet they want you and me to believe they are the "Christian" party???? Sure don't see much love and compassion for the little guy - as we saw with Jesus - in the G.O.P./TEA party. THAT is your party's Achilles Heal.

Your party looks out for the fat cats of Hockessin and Greenville while ignoring the rest of the population.

Thu, Jul 31, 2014 11:37am
Mike: We will simply have to agree to disagree on our opinions on Social Security and the New Deal...though I do agree with you on the need to do away with the $110k ceiling and would go further than you and tax all salary (as is applied to you and I).

I think you are right about many G.O.P. Republicans siding with the uber-wealthy over the 99% but there are more Democrats doing the same vs. the Tea Party representatives. The Tea Party isn't very popular with WallStreet, K-Street or other Big-Business types...those groups want politicians like Romney, Hillary and McCain.

The Republicans have unfairly been labelled already and need to show that they have compassion and care for all citizens. Until our country can take care of our own children, improve our own economy, fix our current educational system, abide by the laws already on the books and protect our own borders...we should not allow those trying to cross the border right now to stay.
Feed them (yes), treat their medical needs (yes), clothe them (yes)...give them amnesty (no).

I was just in Detroit last week doing missions work with very poor kids in our country who have a very sad existence in this life...until our country is fixed we should not be bringing in even more people from unknown backgrounds/unknown health conditions/unknown criminal history.

Mike from Delaware
Thu, Jul 31, 2014 1:49pm
EarlGrey: If I heard TEA party folks saying that stuff, I might be more inclined to be a TEA party person, but sadly you're an exception from what I've observed. They don't want to allow the immigrants in, mainly because they'll most likely be DEM voters and the TEA/GOP never talk about helping our own which includes the inner city folks, but I agree with you 100%. It's very wrong to ignore our own hurting people while bringing more in.

I agree with you about raising the Social Security tax, but figured it would be hard enough to double it much less take the ceiling off completely, but agree that would be far more fair reasonable than stealing Social Security benefits away from retired folks.

Sat, Aug 2, 2014 12:06pm
MIke... what you see is the difference between tea partiers on the ground and those on TV.. those on TV and Congress are entertainers. They have no intention of being serious. Those on the ground are very much like you and me: real people.

The Tea party is being used as a disrupter by the top 1%... The investors who own all the major media outlets... The original basis of the TEA party, (taxed enough already), has been disproved... all around, from education to the 495 bridge, we can see we need more taxes. Kind of obvious, we need to raise the rates and we should start at the top where the money is and votes aren't, and only if needed, work the income levels downward to which high rates apply.

Therefore, as any businessman knows, sometimes you have to keep a good seller on your payroll, even if you don't like them personally. That translates into knowing we have to tax the excess being made by our top one percent, and investing it back into America to give it more economic boost... Because the 1% is where the money is...

Coupled with that, is that we also write off capital investment made here within America's borders. For example if you owe $50 billion in Federal tax, but pump $30 billion into building new manufacturing plants, you pay $20 billion. This double approach, high rates, and high write offs for building in America,will go far to get America back to work, and return America to where it should have been, had Gore gotten in instead of Bush...

The tax cuts killed us. Which is why the Tea Party is irrelevant today. Except to people like Pizza... who are so far out there, their views do not matter.

Sat, Aug 2, 2014 12:15pm
Case in point. Earl was in Detroit. He directly sees what cutting benefits in ordrer to cut taxes translates to... Had taxes been higher, (higher taxes create jobs) and jobs more prevalent, there would be less poverty in Detroit with which to deal... That town needs a massive infusion, and it would be easy to do... Just not with the current No tax mentality currently in effect there in Michigan.

One example. If you cut benefits to save money, those grocery stores have to close. Less jobs, less of an economy, and more poverty. It is a continuous cycle. Cut taxes and one person gets rich, everyone gets poorer. Raise taxes and one person gets rich, and everyone else gets incrementally richer as well.

Earl is young. Mike has seen it in action. The New Deal worked better than Reagonomics.

Add your comment:
Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members Only Group username and password are required to process your post.

You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please click here.

Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.

Copyright © 2014, Delmarva Broadcasting Company. All Rights Reserved.   Terms of Use.
WDEL Statement of Equal Employment Opportunity and Outreach