There is this astonishing change in President Obama in the past week that has some people wondering if it's just bluster . . . and others saying "that's the man I voted for for president."
Others are wondering: where has this Obama been? Forceful, even combative, decisive, specific and focused. Might things have been different if he had adopted this posture from the beginning?
Others explain: Obama is finally free politically. Not only free from ever running for office again, but now free since Nov.4th of ever having to protect vulnerable Democratic office holders in conservative states.
That's why he delayed acting on immigration until after the election -- and they lost anyway, in part because the hispanic voter turnout was probably affected. And we gained nothing in exchange from those opposed to immigration reform.
In short, now he's got nothing to lose. The worst they can do is shut down the government. When they tried that before, it backfired on them politically. They can impeach him, but it will take 2/3 of the senate to convict him. They don't have the votes. And, as we saw with
Bill Clinton, being impeached but not convicted only boosted his ratings.
Besides, as someone suggested on msnbc last night, they may not want to establish the reputation for impeaching two Democratic presidents in a row -- and losing, especially when they have committed no impeachable crimes, other than in the minds of extreme conservative politicos.
So it seems there are two sides to the lame duck analogy. This may be fun.
"So let’s be clear about what’s happening here. Judges who support this cruel absurdity aren’t stupid; they know what they’re doing. What they are, instead, is corrupt, willing to pervert the law to serve political masters. And what we’ll find out in the months ahead is how deep the corruption goes."