I've been seeing lots of articles lately about Republicans talking about impeaching Obama. Each article (including today's in the NYT) has barely been able to stop from openly laughing at them.

Here's what's scary. Hillary decides not to run. President Joe Biden in 2016. That's scary.

lol they're pretty much the same person except Joe is funnier

Joe could have a successful administration if he hired smart people and delegated responsibility. He is on the low end of smart enough to do the job ime.

Biden doesn't win if Hillary does't run. Hopefully Cuomo doesn't either. I'd rather have President Wendy Davis, despite her limited experience. Maybe even Elizabeth Warren.

Edit: Or president Jerry Brown.

I've actually supported Joe quite a bit back to the 90s. He's smarter than people think and is great on foreign policy. However, his time has passed and he alienates many. He's likely be a decent president though.

Holy crap at Jerry Brown possibly making a run.

I'm a huge Joe Biden fan. No one has more experience or connections than he does, and he's apparently super duper smart on policy.

Biden in troll mode is great. Biden in serious mode, not so much.

Biden in serious mode get **** done. Also, he was 2x above the closest replacement in the Senate on foreign policy. That said, I do think he's just not with the contemporary world. Not like Ron Paul gone, but not all there.

Somewhat unrelated--I'm a guy that takes politics seriously and assumes good faith/honest disagreements among participants, it's just that some are crazy/uninformed, etc. Well, I learned what I take to be a semi-important contrary lesson my junior year of of HS. I was nominated for the "Boys State" political camp with a friend of mine (not close friend but we had been in the same classes for five years and had a measure of respect for one another.)

Anyway, we had to show up at some VFW hall and meet the folks and they would choose. They gave us each like 5-10 minutes to speak on the topic of "should burning the flag be outlawed." Now, I didn't have a strong opinion then and I don't now on that particular subject. I probably lean toward "legal" and the whole question being a distraction from more important things. Well, these were old fogie VFW types and, I argued (not particularly well) that it should be made illegal, cause 'murica or whatever. My friend (now a lawyer in NY who came out as gay) argued that it should be legal. He won and got the 'scholarship.' Now, the only point of this story is that I remember how it feels to compromise your 'principles', though that's too strong a word, to tell and audience what they want to hear. For folks without a developed perspective on a subject, it's a pretty natural thing. So, when I see someone like Marco Rubio deal with whatever subject he's dealing with, that's what it reminds me of.

True believers, of course, are a different story. And there are a lot of true believers in the current GOP.

New York Attorney General Sues Donald Trump for Phony "Trump University"

lol wtf trump?

Remember when he was leading the polls for the GOP nomination

seattlelou:

The Republicans may actually be going off the deep end. My own Congressman (Mo Brooks) apparently declared that President Obama should be impeached "if he doesn't balance the budget." If failing to balance the budget equates to a "high crime and misdemeanor," then I suppose every President since Nixon should have been impeached.

This has to be nothing more than pandering. If Republicans are actually serious about impeaching Obama, we'll be treated to the spectacle of watching the GOP putting a gun to their head and pulling the trigger.

This pending government shutdown will be an interesting test for the party. I think Boehner wins the day and a shutdown is avoided. But I am an optimist by nature.

Boehner can "win" on the shutdown (and later the debt ceiling) by passing it with Democrats, but the question is can he talk his caucus into it so he keeps the speakership

Romney in Denial Over Infamous '47 Percent' Video

While searching Google for info on "Bachmannistan" - an explosive "tell all" ebook by a former staffer to retiring Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann - I came across this gem. It appears that Mitt Romney is in deep deep denial. (Maybe the actual reason why he can't bring himself to apologize for his remarks is because he actually believes them!)

http://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-i...-percent-video

I did some terrible things to rats in the name of science. Will probably be eaten by the rat king when I die.

(The lab I worked in was studying hernias, and we used a rat model. I guess I wasn't the one giving rat hernias)

Glenn Beck Vows To Fire Employees For Buying Fluorescent Bulbs, Recyclables

Yeah who knows. I am not a huge fan but I do think he will do what is correct and if he loses the job so be it.

Chickens gonna play chicken IMO.

Which part of Boehner's history shows he will do what is correct and lose the job because of it if that is the result?

He will do whatever the majority of the caucus says they want.

Fly:

According to the lead off commentary by Chris Matthews on tonight's "Hardball" broadcast, President Obama has drawn a "red line in the sand" on a Government shutdown. I'm paraphrasing a bit, but President Obama has apparently decided if the Republicans want the political equivalent of a showdown at the OK Corral - and are determined to force a Government shutdown to try to force a defunding of Obamacare - then the President will let them have their wish. Taking past history into consideration, Obama and his top political advisors have concluded that the last time Republicans tried this high risk gambit, they wound up regretting it. (Newt Gingrich certainly wound up regretting the shutdown.)

John Boehner, for his part, is in a real pickle - a Catch-22 type dilemma. If he caves to Obama (or is perceived as caving to Obama), he probably loses his Speakership. On the other hand, if he caves to the nut cases in his own party and allows a Government shutdown - and President Obama does not cave so Republicans can claim victory and vindication - he also (probably) loses his Speakership. If Speaker Boehner reaches the conclusion that he loses either way, he may just let the Tea Party nuts have their way ...

The interesting thing here is a number of the more strident Republicans (like my own Congressman) believe Obama will cave. They look at his granting of exemptions on the ACA and the extension of various implementation deadlines as signs of weakness. They have convinced themselves that if they push the President to the wall, he'll back down. (In poker this is the classic situation where both players think they have the nuts and all the chips go in. One of them is going to wind up a big loser.)

I don't think there's any way in hell President Obama is going to agree to any kind of "budget deal" that emasculates his signature legislative accomplishment. If President Obama sacrifices the Affordable Care Act just to get a budget deal, he instantly enrages every Democrat who voted for (and fought for) passage of the act. He instantly becomes the Richard Nixon of the Democratic Party. I just don't think President Obama will do that merely to get a budget deal with the Republicans. His "drawing a line in the sand" today may have been a negotiating ploy, but he may also have been sending a message to the GOP: "You want a war, you'll get a war."

If I weren't such a librul, I might feel sorry for John Boehner. Regardless of how this plays out, Boehner has few outs. I don't see a way for Boehner to come out of this a big winner. In fact, if it all goes to hell and the radical element within the GOP forces a Government shutdown, I wouldn't be surprised to see Boehner making one of his dramatic (tearful) speeches on the House floor announcing his resignation as Speaker. He'll give the gavel to Eric Cantor (figuratively saying) "So you've wanted this job all along. Here, you can have it!" Now that would be dramatic. (I think I'm getting a little carried away.)

Quite the opposite. Boehner has broken the "Hassert" rule four times this year and has counted on the Dems to pass the fiscal cliff, Sandy Aid, and the violence against women act legislation. He is weak but he isn't captive to the tea party.

Who Cracks First?

The operating theory among most pols, pundits, media observers and political commentators is that there won't be a Government shutdown. If President Obama and the Republicans are unable to reach an agreement on the budget and raising the debt ceiling, a CR (Continuing Resolution) will be passed and the sequester will continue. Both sides will try to claim a victory while Republicans insist that voters will have to decide the issue in the 2014 mid term elections. (I thought voters were supposed to have decided all this in the 2012 election, but what do I know?) So that's the operating theory ... But what if the "operating theory" is wrong?

What if there is a Government shutdown because the President and Congress fail to reach a budget agreement and fail to raise the debt ceiling? What occurs in the immediate aftermath of a standoff? Who wins (and who loses) in that scenario? Also, who knuckles under and caves? Who cracks first?

The more strident Republicans (like Ted Cruz) say if they don't stop Obamacare now, the game's over - they'll never kill the ACA - so Republicans have an incentive to go for broke. If the debt ceiling is not raised, (which presumably means the United States can no longer borrow to cover current obligations), financial markets will definitely react. If our Government can no longer borrow, even temporarily, there's no guarantee that Social Security recipients will continue receiving their monthly checks. If people aren't getting their monthly stipends from the Government, I have a feeling all hell will break loose. (Washington politicians will finally have managed to get peoples' attention.)

Does the fact that a Government shutdown (and failure to raise the debt ceiling) leads to such dire consequences ensure that "more rational" minds will prevail - or is the USS Titanic headed for that proverbial iceberg?