With apologies to Allahpundit: Alternate headline: “He’s running.”
Attorney General Eric Holder should be impeached if he refuses to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS tea party-targeting scandal, Senator Ted Cruz demanded Thursday.
The Texas Republican, who has sounded the call for a special prosecutor in the scandal before, made his case for possible impeachment on the Senate floor, ripping into Holder for not standing up to President Barack Obama.
"It saddens me to say that the U.S. Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder has become the most partisan Department of Justice in the history of our country," Cruz said, blasting its lead investigator on the IRS issue, Barbara Bosserman, as a "partisan" donor who gave over $6,000 to the president's two election campaigns. He also noted IRS Commissioner John Koskinen has contributed over $100,000 to Democrats.
“Americans need a guarantee that the IRS will never be used again to target an administration’s political enemies."
And they're not going to get one from the Obama Regime, ever, under any conceivable circumstances, no matter how many times Senator Cruz calls for Eric "The Red's" impeachment. A fact of which he must be aware, but which he goes through the motions of saying anyway to get the call on the public record for history's sake, I guess. Though it's the right thing to say, and would be the right thing to do, there is something more than faintly comical about demanding that two red peas in a commie pod "stand up to" each other. Did Heinrich Himmler ever "stand up to" Adolph Hitler?
Senator Cruz must also be aware that there's not going to be any impeachment of anybody only four months out from a midterm election where GOP prospects for big gains are so rich and abundant. While it's true that impeaching Holder wouldn't be quite the same magnitude of "racist affront" that going after King Hussein himself would, for the Left it would be as DefCon 2 to DefCon 1. Eric "The Red" is Red Barry's top lieutenant, after all, plus he's "of color," so the bleepstorm stirred up by such a showdown is more than sufficient deterrent against the attempt being made, at least until after November 4th.
I know, I know, "But what about principle?" Believe me, I sympathize and empathize with y'all on that. Obama and Holder should be impeached, removed, criminally prosecuted, and imprisoned for the rest of their worthless lives for what they've done to this country over the past five and a half years. But, as I always say, lots of things in life should happen but never do or can. The fact of the matter is that impeaching Eric Holder would be pointless. There's no way a Democrat Senate would even try him, much less remove him from the A-G-ship. All the attempt would accomplish is to generate another guaranteed wave of anti-GOP/anti-Tea Party media vilification and energize the Nutroots right in time for the midterm elections with zero chance of a conviction payoff.
As the adage goes, never throw rocks at a guy with a machine gun.
Plus, even if Holder could be removed, why would anybody expect that his infernal majesty would do anything but appoint a Holder clone as his replacement? The problem here, ultimately, isn't the Attorney-General, but his boss. And all the practical reasons against impeaching Eric "The Red" go double for moving against O.
So what, besides sterling principle, is motivating Senator Cruz to make so "provocative" a public rallying cry? Eeyore believes it's Defundageddon all over again:
This reminds me a little of the “defund” effort, actually, insofar as Cruz is encouraging the House to do something bold knowing he hasn’t a prayer of getting the Democratic Senate to play along. If they take his advice and impeach Holder, great. He can take credit among righties for having introduced the idea, regardless of what happens in the Senate. If they decline to impeach Holder, great. That just proves his point that Congress needs more principled conservatives in charge of both chambers. I assume it’s no coincidence that he’s introducing this the day after Boehner announced that the House will sue Obama for executive overreach. Lawsuits are all well and good, but only a squish would run to the courts for relief when he has it in his institutional power to remove an offending executive branch official himself. Republicans want bold colors, as Cruz is fond of saying, not pale pastels.
Yeah, we want bold colors. But we'd also like control of the Senate back as well. Of the two propositions, the former is impossible while the latter is likely. So why risk sacrificing the latter, which is attainable and would bring the former into the realm of possibility (if not probability), in favor of the former, which is currently a pipedream?
Because Senator Cruz wants to be seen as "fighting the good fight," even when doing so will, in terms of actual, real-world results, be counterproductive at best. Which, it seems to me, brings his "bold colors" into legitimate question vis-a-vie his presidential ambitions.
If only the latter were attainable. Were they, it might actually be worth it.
No comments:
Post a Comment