Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 26 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H3'ed 8/1/14

Why the Democratic Party Will Die Unless a House Democrat Introduces a Resolution to Impeach President Obama

By       (Page 1 of 3 pages)   11 comments

The only individuals who possess the constitutional power to introduce a bill of impeachment against the President are the members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Republicans there have said that they won't do it, and the reason is that they won't impeach him for doing things that George W. Bush did -- and that's all they'd be able to prove against him. So: that's understandable -- they don't want to look like fools, especially heading into the 2014 elections. But what about House Democrats? So far, they've not done it because the Party base, the people who elected them, think it would be disloyal. Boy, are they wrong! Democrats impeaching and removing Obama is, to the contrary, the only way to salvage the Democratic Party.

As things now stand, Republicans will win back control of the U.S. Senate in this November's elections, and President Barack Obama will thus spend his final two years in office rubber-stamping Republican-passed laws into effect regarding U.S. foreign policy, the military, spending-priorities, his emerging (perhaps nuclear) war against Russia, and many other things. Some of his vetoes on other issues, such as abortion, will be overridden by Congress. Obama will be even more despised than he now is, because he will be the dream President for the billionaires who fund the Republican Party (he'll prove himself to have been the Republican-in-sheep's-clothing "Democrat" that they previously could only hope for and dream about). The American masses will rightfully come to loathe him, and they will rightfully blame the Democratic Party for it, because they will see him as not only a liar, but a traitor, and they won't ever again trust the Democratic Party, which will then be finished.

Even as things now stand, this recognition is beginning to sink in, among the broader public.

According to "United States presidential approval rating" at wikipedia, "President Obama has averaged an approval rating of 48% through his first five-plus years in office, which has dropped his average approval below Richard Nixon (49.1%) and George W. Bush (49.4%)."

On June 24th, I headlined at Huffington Post, "Gallup: The Lowest-Rated Living President Or Ex-President Is Barack Obama," and I opened:

A Gallup poll published on June 20th shows that the only living current or former occupant of the White House who has a negative rating from the U.S. public is its current occupant, President Obama, with 52% unfavorable, 47% favorable. All others of them are favorably rated. The least favorably rated of those (the one closest to Obama in unfavorability) is George W. Bush, with 53% favorable, 44% unfavorable. His having invaded Iraq for non-existent WMD, and produced the 2008 crash, have apparently been forgiven, which is remarkable, and which is due to his having increased his favorability rating from only 32% at the crash in 2008. Next-least favorably rated is Jimmy Carter, with 52% favorable, 32% unfavorable, and a remarkably high 16% "No opinion" or undecided. He has now become a rather popular former President. Next-least favorably rated, and virtually tied at the very top as being one of the two top-rated recent Presidents, is G.H.W. Bush, with 63% favorable, 31% unfavorable. That compares with Bill Clinton's 64% favorable, 34% unfavorable. Although Clinton has a 1% edge on "favorable," his "unfavorable" rating is 3% higher than the senior Bush's; so: the person with the highest overall ratio of favorable/unfavorable is actually G.H.W. Bush, who is, thus, the highest-rated living current or former President.

Of course, people's Presidential ratings are highly partisan. G.W. Bush is popular now only because 88% of Republicans rate him favorably -- their post-crash disappointment with him is, in effect, gone. The only reason why G.H.W. Bush scores significantly higher overall than does G.W. Bush is that he scores far higher than "Junior" does among Democrats, only 26% of whom approve, whereas 44% of them approve of his father, G.H.W. Bush. (The latter is favorably rated by 89% of Republicans; so, Republicans give him only an insignificant 1% edge over his son.)

On 18 July 2014, I documented that, "Obama is a terrifically unpopular President, and his being called a 'Democrat' is, in fact, destroying the Democratic brand, which desperately needs to be rebuilt." However, the many negative reader-comments there from my fellow Democrats suggest that they need more data in order to recognize that their Party's brand has actually been destroyed by Obama. So: here that it is.

Here are Americans' Party-affiliations shown by Gallup since 2004.

I'll boil it down:

In 2004, there were more Republicans and lean-Republicans than Democrats and lean-Democrats on only 9 out of the 35 Gallup polls taken during that year.

In 2005, this went down to only 8 of the 42 polls.

All the way from 2006-2009, which is four straight years, there were no such occasions at all; Democrats consistently outnumbered Republicans.

Then, in 2010, starting in the 27-30 August 2010 poll, after hundreds of millions of dollars spent mainly by the Koch brothers and their friends, frightening Americans against "Obama's death panels" and "fake birth certificate," 6 of that year's 22 Gallup polls on Party-affiliation showed Republicans outnumbering Democrats.

In 2011, that happened again in 10 of the 19 such polls.

In 2012, it happened on only 1 of the 21 polls.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

Interesting 2   Must Read 1   News 1  
Rate It | View Ratings

Eric Zuesse Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010,  and of  CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that (more...)
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact EditorContact Editor
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

First Examination of Malaysian MH-17 Cockpit Photo Shows Ukraine Government Shot that Plane Down

Indications that the U.S. Is Planning a Nuclear Attack Against Russia

Harry Reid Effectively Kills Obama's TPP and TTIP International Trade Deals

MH-17 'Investigation': Secret August 8th Agreement Seeps Out

UPDATED -- Conclusive: 2 Ukrainian Government Fighter-Jets Shot Down that Malaysian Airliner.

The Propaganda War About Ukraine: How Important It Really Is

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend