And we're not even done yet. Now there are reports of the HHS Secretary soliciting donations from the very companies that her department regulates. More violations of the law.

Dipplayer - link please on HHS

AARP and the NAACP are not POLITICAL parties.

Therein lies the radical difference in terming the Tea Party radicals, dipplayer.

And +1 redhouse (again.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/14/lamar-alexander-sebelius-fundraising-arguably-an-even-bigger-issue-than-iran-contra/

The Tea Party is not a political party, either. It is a movement, just like the AARP and the NAACP. And there is no way in hell you can claim that the AARP and the NAACP are apolitical.

@ obiwanobiwan

"Unless this is a Watergate-style thing (and I maintain none of the three even come close to that, especially at this stage)"

A couple of third-rate burglars tried to bust into the Democratic Party headquarters and Nixon kept it hush-hush until after he was elected. That's Watergate.

The Obama administration (even you have to admit that these things are AT LEAST cabinet level) sold guns to Mexican drug cartels and a Border Patrol agent (in addition to dozens of Mexican citizens) was killed as a direct result. Four Americans (including an ambassador) were left for dead during an attack on the US consulate in Benghazi while Obama was sleeping and someone gave a stand-down order. The DoJ wiretapped the AP. The IRS inappropriately investigated opposing political organizations.

Nixon had nothing to do with the comically amateurish burglary. *If* none of these scandals involve AT LEAST Cabinet-level personnel, then Cabinet-level heads should roll for failing to manage the respective departments. I somehow doubt that some low-level pencil pushing bureaucrat could orchestrate the Benghazi stand-down, Fast and Furious, the IRS investigations, or the AP wiretaps.

"The Tea Party is not a political party, either."

I'm sorry...I can't take you seriously anymore.

Prominent politicians and elected officials in the House, but no, not a political party, but a "movement," as if one precluded the other?

Yeah...no.

"And there is no way in hell you can claim that the AARP and the NAACP are apolitical."

When they have elected members representing their "party" in the House or another branch of the US, I'll equate them to the Tea Party.

the Tea Party is a political party, the other two are organizations--big difference in the elected reality if not on paper.

You are ignorant. The Tea Party is not an organized political party. They have no candidates on ballots. They are a movement.

"Fuck y'all," said God.

Tea Party platform ^

@Obi - When the ballot with the so called "
Tea PArty" representation actually says "Tea Party" next to their name (hint it *doesn't*) then it will be a party. Until then it is a movement within the Republican Party.

I'm wondering what level must be reached before a scandal is bad enough to force a president to resign, or to be impeached. As Gunfighter pointed out, Watergate was pretty minor compared to some of the shenanigans foisted on the public by the last 5 presidents. Iran-Contra, Clinton's perjury, Bush torture policy, and now a string of Obama's fumbles....

What now constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors"? Personal opinions allowed welcomed.....

""And there is no way in hell you can claim that the AARP and the NAACP are apolitical."

When they have elected members representing their "party" in the House or another branch of the US, I'll equate them to the Tea Party."

Maybe you say this because certain republicans have been unseated or propelled forward by the the loosely connected organizations that make up the Tea Party movement, but can you seriously imagine a politician in southern Florida bucking the AARP or a politician on the south side of Chicago ignoring the NAACP?

It's very "Chicken Little-y" in here.

Actually, Clinton was impeached. The Senate just didn't convict him. Impeachment is like the grand jury saying "there is sufficient evidence, so try him" and the Senate would be the jury that says "guilty/not guilty". The grand jury (House) found sufficient evidence (impeached) but the trial court jury (Senate) could not get enough votes to convict (uphold and remove from office).

Sorry for not being more precise. I undestand the difference between impeachment and trial. I meant "removed from office". And if my memory serves, the Senate's attitude was not so much "not guilty" as it was "guilty, but not a *high crime or misdemeanor* that would warrant removal from office".

So my question stands, what does it take for the senate to *convict*?

@redhouse:" 'they simply focus hard on one thing.' Textbook definition of extremist :-)"

You need a new textbook. Yours is incorrect.

Well, I don't think getting a little something something in the Oval Office was a crime at all and his "lying" about it was stupid on their part because the questions should never have been asked to begin with. Who gives a fuck if he got lucky. If Kennedy had done it with Marilyn Monroe, the whole of the nation would have been applauding him with the guys envious of him and the ladies envious of Marylin for fuck's sake.

Obviously, even though I lean Republican, I find that whole event distasteful and a waste of tax payers dollars by the Republican's to begin with. So that definitely did *not* warrant removal from office.

Watergate may not have gotten Nixon removed, but he chose to go out on his own terms by resigning.

What would get a President removed? A 2/3rds majority in the Senate of the opposite party then anything they thought they could push through House to get the impeachment. It is purely political short of outright murder or direct involvement in a felony that alienated him from his own party as well.

@flemjem: "and now a string of Obama's fumbles...."

Wow. Mutherfuckinjust wow.

Oops, I allowed a bunch of assault weapons to be sold illegally to known drug cartels ... My bad, dropped that metaphorical football. And the other team scooped it right up and scored a touchdown ... Which is to say they murdered a bunch of people with it (the metaphor breaks down at some point)

Oops, I wasn't holding that ball very well, as I was running past the defensive line, (and by defensive line, I mean the AP, and by football I mean wiretaps on the press)Yep just dropped the football all over the place, fumbled it ... My bad

What a pathetic minimization of some pretty fucked up deeds.

Jeffrey Dhamer's lawyer should have tried that:
"ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you can't convict my client for a few fumbles ... That severed head in his refrigerator was accidentally fumbled there, he just couldn't maintain possession. No worse than a football player, really, when you think about it in football metaphors"

Tea party is not a party thats funny. Show me one ballot that shows a candidate listed as 'tea party'

Ridiculous. Havne't read any replies, but the OP is ridiculous. Most Americans are too stupid to 1. understand the scandals or 2. give a rat's ass. As long as they have a paycheck (whether through work or, increasingly, "welfare", they are happy). Most people are now used to an accept the bad economy and lower work force participation, and have adjusted their lifestyle. Therefore, any economic advancement from stagnation to mediocrity will be seen as a gain, and therefore it is altogether possible that the Democrats pick up seats in 2014 (depending on how hard the major media fights for the Dems in the next election cycle...)....and therefore, with solid control of the Senate, and enough movement in the Congress, he could have one hell of a final two years in office.

Not probable...but certainly within the realm of possiblity.

@krellin: Didn't read your reply just the part about you not reading replies. Then I stopped and mindlessly started typing this. Hope it helps to clear up any confussion you had about the discussion.

@philcore -- as very nearly every "discussion" is derailed from the Original Post within three troll's postings, I decided to just the discussion *fresh* from the OP. Because scanning up briefly from here, I don't see many posts relevant to the OP.

And...thank you, Philcore, for doing *exactly* as I just described -- being a troll and derailing the discussion from the OP.

SO - once again - back to the OP. The "scandals" which are currently suggeted to bring down the Presidency have as much, and ONLY as much, life as the media allows them to have. As soon as there is a Public Shooting / Angelina Jolie get her tits whacked off / a gay man get's beat up (but only if by a white man / a natural disaster detroys a home (of course caused by global warming) / or a pretty *blonde* white woman goes "missing"...the media will move on, and the "scandal" will be over. This effect is particularly enhanced by the fact the the current Republican "leadership" is so fucking weak, that even if they caught Obama kidnapping and raping your grandmother they wouldn't be able to take him down.

"Most Americans are too stupid to 1. understand the scandals or 2. give a rat's ass."

Wow.

Albeit from an entirely different political angle...

For once, I agree with krellin. (Should I be worried?)

@Krellin:

Parse error interpreting post: missing ")"

The extensive use of drones is the real scandal of Obama's presidency.

Republicans do not want to acknowledge that the man is "tough" whereas Democrats just avert their eyes. "Our" Nobel prize winner cannot be "bad". To think that the reckless Bush "only" had under 50 missions and Obama is today over 300. And he still has 4 more years in front of him.

Drones are becoming cheaper by the day. It is just a matter of time before one is used against the Western world. Americans are just giving ideas to the Russians, the Chinese and terrorist organisations. And when it happens Obama, or the next American president, will have no moral authority to condemn it.

So no, unfortunately Obama presidency is not over, we can expect 300 more drone operations.

@ Obi - I'd be happy to see this President leave office in disgrace...it's just not going to happen, and frankly it should not happen. He's incompetent at best, but as far as we know, he has broken no laws, an therefore has every right to serve out his ill-gotten second term...

I'm inclined to agree that too many American will not give a rat's ass. They will shrug at Washington behaving badly again.

That is not a healthy development.

If the Clinton Regime could get away with gassing, shooting, and incinerating 84 people on American soil, I think Obama is safe.