Cynics, curmudgeons and anarchists might think the impeachment tactic is a hilarious practical joke, but some patriotic Americans might want the chief executive to be able to devote his full attention to the nation's problems and not have to set aside time to respond to a political side show.
Some Republicans have, from the start of Obama's term in office, dreamed that the only desirable and appropriate result of the historic and president setting Presidency would be to have him removed by the impeachment process and branded as an incompetent bungling buffoon. Why would they let a few pragmatic considerations influence their chance to make their dreams come true and thereby considerably diminish the chances in the future for making a second replay of the history making election a virtual impossibility?
Predictions that Obama will soon be impeached will seem absurd in retrospect if he is not impeached and will be totally ignored if he is. Since the mainstream media is owned and operated by conservatives, any accurate predictions will be ignored and that brings up the question of why bother to write any such fearless political forecasts?
Conservative pundits have a high likelihood of earning enormous financial rewards for their labor but liberal pundits are doing the Cheshire Cat style disappearing act and are vanishing from the pop culture scene.
So if a fellow is attracted to the punditry game by the prospect of fame, fortune, and fun and if conservative commentators are the only ones permitted to earn big bucks and become celebrities; why should anybody want to write critical assessments of the Republican Reich which is just about to begin in earnest?
Is "just for fun" a legitimate reason for getting up early
on a Friday morning to bang out a weekly column?
What if the pundit uses the zen approach to maximize his fun quotient?
Obviously, a husband and a family man can't expect to have a blast doing fact gathering and expect his wife and kids to approve, but when the pundit is a bachelor who has the basic needs (a bunk and meals) covered, why shouldn't he accept that his mission in life is to be a proxy for the average IrishCatholicDemocrat voter and to sally forth looking for interesting people, amazing sights, and perceptive insights into the zeitgeist of contemporary society?
If he can and does subsidize his expenses no one would criticize his choices for spending the money, n'est ce pas?
If the prediction that Obama will be impeached early this
year is correct, then the people who were so busy reporting on the latest
police shootings (like the one December 30 in Bridgeton New Jersey?
[Do a Google News search.]) will have to scramble to reassess what the
consequences would be of such an impeachment.
If Obama is impeached, Joseph Biden would then become President and as the incumbent would have a virtual lock on the Democratic Party's nomination in 2016. That would mean that Hillary Clinton would be left crying at the alter, so to speak. All the commentary and speculation about a Hillary vs. JEB contest in 2016 would immediately become extinct verbiage.
If a pundit were to make such a prediction and be wrong couldn't he just say: "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!"?
Big name conservative pundits and commentators will want the maximum "gotcha!" effect of a sudden move to impeach and so they won't mention any rumblings in Congress that indicate such a move will take place. Liberal pundits use the psychological phenomenon called "projection" to avoid a distasteful subject.
Projection means that since Liberals don't think that impeachment is a rational move, then they assume that Republicans in Congress will think likewise and so they don't bring up the possibility.
If a liberal pundit were to approach the possibility from the "How do Republicans think" style of analysis, then they would immediately sound the alarm and shriek: "He's gonna get impeached !"