Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Thursday, October 27, 2016

Alaska Senate candidate Joe Miller reminded Republicans of why they desperately hope he fails to capture their party’s nomination, when he joined the growing chorus of Republican candidates calling for President Barack Obama’s impeachment.

Miller weighed in on the subject during a Chamber of Commerce forum with fellow candidates Mead Treadwell and Dan Sullivan. The Alaska Dispatch News reports:

In the mix of anti-federal and anti-Obama statements, Miller went beyond Sullivan and Treadwell, calling for impeachment of the president.

“I think we all agree that Obama’s out of control,” Miller said, adding that the president is acting almost like a dictator.

When it was Miller’s turn to question Sullivan, he asked the former attorney general what it would take for him to support impeachment. Sullivan did not answer the question directly but said that if articles of impeachment reached the Senate, he would take them seriously.

Under the Constitution, the House of Representatives has the power to vote for articles of impeachment, while the Senate serves an adjudicatory role. Sullivan said he agrees “110 percent that this administration is out of control” but argued that an Alaska senator has to use influence to accomplish what the state needs, citing votes to confirm Cabinet secretaries that Begich should have used for leverage on such issues as the King Cove road request.

Although GOP leaders have insisted that the threat of impeachment has been manufactured by Democrats for their own political gain, Miller is just one of many Republican politicians to openly declare his desire to remove the president from office.

That’s not to say that Democrats aren’t making political gains from the threat; polls suggest that Americans strongly oppose impeachment, and Democratic fundraising has gone through the roof since the party began seizing upon the GOP’s impeachment talk. There’s a reason that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee keeps a running list of Republicans who have broached the subject.

Miller himself could be a political boon for Democrats. The Tea Party-backed attorney demonstrated in 2010 that he is unelectable in a statewide race; after edging incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski in the Republican primary, his hard-right politics and a series of controversies (most notably an incident in which his security guards handcuffed a journalist at a town hall event) opened the door for Murkowski to topple him with a write-in campaign in the general election. Accusing President Obama of dictatorial behavior is nothing out of the ordinary for him (indeed, the resurgence of impeachment talk was started by Miller’s highest-profile supporter, Sarah Palin).

In 2014, he’s once again a serious longshot to win the general election. Although incumbent Democratic senator Mark Begich barely leads Sullivan and Treadwell in the polls, he’s up by 14 percent on Miller.

Sullivan is generally considered to be the narrow frontrunner for the Republican nomination, with Treadwell in second and Miller in third. But, as Miller proved in 2010, anything can happen in a low-turnout primary.

Photo: Ryan McFarland via Flickr

Want more political news and analysis? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 The National Memo
  • Lynda Groom

    Have any of these clowns ever read the Constitution that they claim to hold on high? This guy is wearing his ignorance on his sleeve like a red badge of courage.

    • Jambi

      You are correct!!! “Clowns” are what they are!…I think they believe that “impeachment” means…”we want to get rid of the President because we disagree with his policies”…No President (not even Andrew Johnson, who came within one vote) has ever been “removed from office”…do these buffoons know that?…Nixon resigned knowing that he might be the first to be “removed”…Clinton faced impeachment charges….I think you hit the nail on the head!…I really doubt that many of these Republican ignoramouses have actually “read” the Constitution!…They often claim that “Obama is shredding the Constitution, but they never seem to get around to explaining what section or article the President is violating…they don’t like going into detail…they just make “political noise”…

      • itsfun

        Clinton not only faced impeachment charges, he got impeached.

        • Grannysmovin

          Two Presidents were impeached – None were removed from Office. Both Johnson and Clinton were acquitted by the Senate and Nixon resigned. So again, repeating Jambi’s comment – “No President has ever been removed from office”

          • itsfun

            Never said Clinton got removed by the Senate. I said he got impeached. So to repeat what I said, he not only faced impeachment charges, he got impeached.

          • Grannysmovin

            So the point of reply was what??? That Clinton was impeached- think we know that and we also know it made him more popular. No response necessary

          • itsfun

            The point was the original post only said he faced impeachment charges, not that he was impeached.

          • 503me

            He was cleared by the senate

        • 503me

          Actually clinton was not impeached and went on to serve a second term

          • itsfun

            He was impeached. The House impeaches and the Senate removes. He was not removed. That is probably what would happen if the House decided to try to impeach Obama.

          • 503me

            Articles of impeachment brought, but he was not impeached-see the difference? Did you read the article?

          • Allan Richardson

            If you are accused, that is being impeached. Analogous to being indicted and tried for a crime. An impeached official (we’re talking Presidents here, but any elected or appointed official other than a House or Senate member can be impeached) MAY or may NOT be convicted and removed from office. Being impeached only takes a simple majority of the House; in theory, the Tea Party House could have done that in January 2011, but it would have been futile, and maybe gotten 95 percent of the voters angry, not just 65 percent. Conviction and removal takes a two thirds vote of the full Senate (67 votes with 50 states, quite a bit less in the 1860s). Andrew Johnson was saved by one vote (the Republicans had counted on their two thirds supermajority for a party line vote, but one Senator voted not guilty because he had too much respect for the Constitution to use it purely for political gain; he sacrificed his political career, of course, and got a chapter in Kennedy’s “Profiles in Courage)”.

            And by the way, any impeached official is still subject to prosecution by normal criminal justice after removal from office, but the impeachment conviction itself can do nothing more than remove from office and disqualify from future federal office (state office is not specifically mentioned, so that would be up to state law: can a President removed by impeachment run for his state’s Governor? if Texas, probably yes, LOL).

            And most impeachments actually used by Congress are for federal JUDGES who have ALREADY been committed of some regular crime, and are already in jail, but refuse to resign and give up their salaries even though they cannot do their jobs while in jail. Naturally, these are pretty much automatic. Cabinet officials who get into legal trouble can be fired by the President, of course, and in most cases no President would fail to fire a convicted felon, but impeachment is still there as a backup.

          • 503me

            Ok, let’s try this again, if impeachment charges are brought and not upheld, then there is no impeachment. FYI your example is not correct, as if you are indicted and not convicted, then you are found innocent and not convicted. Get it yet?

          • Allan Richardson

            But you were still INDICTED, which is what being impeached means in the political world. Johnson and Clinton WERE impeached but were NOT removed from office. Obama COULD be impeached but would almost certainly NOT be removed unless the GOP gets 67 Senators and not even one of them makes up his/her own mind. And by the way, Joe Biden does NOT get a tie breaker vote, and is not even allowed in the room during the trial.

          • DurdyDawg

            So in other words: Guilty until proven otherwise? Basically a fool’s argument.

      • Dominick Vila

        The most important part, I believe, is that a President must have violated at least one of the articles of impeachment to be impeached. You cannot impeach a President because you don’t like his policies, much less because he did something you wanted him to do…until he did it!

        • Allan Richardson

          Andrew Johnson was impeached for violating an unconstitutional law that was passed with an override of his veto specifically in order to trap him. He wanted to fire Secretary of War Henry Stanton, which was and is a Constitutional power of every President, but the Radical Republican (like today’s Tea Party but on the opposite end of the spectrum) Congress passed a law saying that, just as the Constitution requires two thirds of the Senate to HIRE a cabinet or other high official, Johnson would have to get a two thirds confirmation of his FIRING. Johnson fired Stanton, counting on a Supreme Court overturning of the new law, but they voted to impeach him BEFORE the Court could hear the case. And since the Constitution says that “high crimes and misdemeanors” basically are whatever Congress says they are, they were able to come close to removing him from office. Of course, the rest of his term he was powerless, but at least THAT precedent was not set. Even though the Court eventually did find the law unconstitutional, his removal from office would have remained in effect, since the Court very seldom second guesses the Congress on inter-branch rivalries.

      • sleepvark

        You miss the point that the president is flagrantly violating area 51 of the constitution that clearly states that any 3/5 ths of a person shall not be qualified to hold office, no matter whether he passes the religious test for office or not. Look it up. It’s there in white on white in section catch 22. It applies especially to blacks.
        His policies? Just a way to sidestep the fact that they are racists.

    • johninPCFL

      As Dilbert once asked his pointy-haired boss, “When did STUPID become a point of view?”

  • Mark

    Impeachment. Benghazi. I.R.S scandal. Class wars. War on whites. Opposition to restoring the voting rights act. The list goes on and on, but one thing is consistent; the GOP has no use for, and nothing to offer anyone but the 1%. This causes the Tea Party to run as nutbags. When you have no solutions, sounding crazy is all your base wants to hear.

    • Allan Richardson

      Actually, only the 1% gets ACTUAL benefits from the GOP. The lower and middle income white evangelical voter gets the EMOTIONAL satisfaction of feeling like a winner by being associated with the 1% by proxy, like feeling like a winner if your favorite athletic team is a champion. This was how the poor white men in the Antebellum South (and later, the Jim Crow South) were kept under control, even though the institution of slavery kept THEIR wages low: they were taught to hate and despise black people (i.e. slaves) so they could feel “superior” to someone just by being white.

      • DurdyDawg

        There’s also another reason to cater to the 1% (actually 5%).. and that has to do with future employment for themselves and/or their spoiled brats. These gas bags know politics isn’t a ‘career’ (though they crow about it constantly).. that by the odds they will become nothing more than a chip within a monopoly game once their done.. They also know they do not want themselves or their kids to go out and blue collar for a living like the majority of Americans so they belly up to the elite as insurance that no family member will end up working in a coal mine nor ever have to go to war..

  • jmprint

    Calling for impeachment is the republicans way of saying “We tried are damnedest to obstruct Obama and failed” and the law suite is because they want to prove to America that they have been working on this project for 5 years straight and even though they don’t have a leg to stand on, they have bought enough judges, politicians and death/dumb christians, that they can pull this through at any cost. Why? Because they don’t care about Americans, of course unless you are rich and can be bought. They have ONE agenda and that’s to RULE.

  • 503me

    Ever notice that all these fools use the same stock impeachment statement and never can point to any actual reasons?

    • Allan Richardson

      Of course! If you don’t agree with them enough to just “know” they’re right without naming a reason, you are obviously a “dumb liberal” so they don’t care about your opinion anyway! Like the old Dagwood/Blondie joke where Dagwood wants to know what he did to anger Blondie and she says “if you don’t know, I’m not going to tell you.”

      • DurdyDawg

        Actually their akin to the dumb ass who watches drama re-runs in hopes that the outcome will eventually go their way.. The GOP keeps using the same lame excuses for impeachment in hopes that there will be more dumbasses out there who salivate for a different outcome.

  • Allan Richardson

    “We all agree?” Since when did 33 percent of voters constitute “all?” And how many of that 33 percent are just agreeing with the pollster to be nice, or so they won’t be thought to be (GASP!) “liberal?”

  • Siegfried Heydrich

    This is funny. The right has been talking about impeachment since the day Obama was sworn in, using it to flack their base and raise funds. Now that the dems have picked up the same tactic and are using to rouse THEIR base, oh, the horror! And the really uproarious thing is that Obama really doesn’t have to DO anything, all he has to do to send the wingnuts into a screaming rage demanding his immediate impeachment is just keep floating trial balloons.

    He’s discovered your hot button, and he’s punching it. Every time he does, you howl, shriek, chatter, and jump up and down hurling poo. All the RWNJ bobbleheads denounce Obama’s “lawlessness”, and encourage all conservatives to call their reps and DEMAND that he be impeached! The dems then look to their own base and go ‘See? Told you – they’re serious, they intend to impeach Obama if you don’t stop them’. This is political judo on an epic level, Obama’s harnessing your own madness to advance his cause, and you can’t stop either him or yourselves.

    What’s even funnier is that the more the RINOs (who remember what happened the LAST time they pulled that stunt) say that no, they’re NOT going to impeach Obama and that it’s a really bad idea, it just makes the base even more furious. Seriously, this is a lose-lose for the GOP, and a win-win for the dems. And the really great thing about it is that they’ve done this to themselves. The irony here is so thick you could cut it up and sell it by the pound . . .

  • latebloomingrandma

    If Obama is a dictator and tyrant, he is a poor one. Remember Palin,, praising Putin’s toughness, while our dictator wears Mom jeans and acts wimpy. I can’t keep up with them. They must have all flunked logic.