Laying odds on whether Republicans will or won't attempt to once again impeach a Democratic president because
reasons hinges on which part of the party you think is in charge. Is it party leadership, who are eager to downplay such talk because they know it makes them look crazy, or is it the nutcase
wing of the party?
Flores went on to say he doesn’t see impeachment as worthwhile because the effort would ultimately fail, but the Texas congressman nevertheless told his constituents a “fair number” of his colleagues would support impeaching President Obama for reasons he did not identify – and suggested the cause has merit.
This report surfaced the same afternoon as another Republican congressman, North Carolina’s Walter Jones, said he preferred impeachment over his party’s lawsuit idea. Also yesterday, a Republican congressional candidate in Tennessee told reporters, “I would be open to impeachment as an option to put a stop to the out-of-control executive orders and overreach this president has shown.”
But if you've been paying any attention at all over the last few years, figuring out which part of the party is "in charge" isn't even a question; House "leadership" has no control over the Republican Big Heaping Bowl of Party Nuts, and hasn't for some time.
That's presuming there is even such a thing as House "leadership": Eric Cantor got himself tossed out of office, leaving a replacement who botched his first real test (immigration), and John Boehner has for years ceded his own control and/or better judgment to the nuts on any issue the nuts feel strongly about. He ceded the decision over whether or not to shutdown the government to a handful of zealots rallied by Sen. Ted Cruz, for example, and he just last week ceded House immigration policy wholesale to anti-immigration zealot Steve King. You know, that Steve King.
All of this comes just a few days after Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) raised the prospect of pursuing “that ‘I word’ that we don’t want to say,” and a week after House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) refused multiple opportunities to say impeachment is off the table.
So there's your supposedly sensible "leadership", at present. Let's not get all confused over whether or not Speaker John Boehner might fold when the impeachment chips are down. Folding in the face of far-right zealotry is what he does.
Ah, but even that is presuming that Boehner's being honest in his own pouting dismissals of impeachment talk. Is he truly on the anti-impeachment "side?" Given that Boehner was the one who initiated a "lawsuit against the president" for nonsensical reasons, perhaps because he felt forced by the party nuts to follow their central argument of Obama tyranny and general lawlessness or perhaps because he honestly (cough) thinks such things, you'd be hard pressed to argue that even he himself is tamping down on such talk. He can't even tamp down on such talk when it's coming out of his own mouth, heaven help anyone who suggests he'll get far with the post-election wider caucus.
So yes, I think it's rather obvious that the crazy wing of the party is fully in charge of whether or not they'll try to impeach the president after this latest election season has been properly dispensed with; there simply is no "leadership" capable or willing to oppose them. I also think the record on whether or not Republicans will take dramatic anti-government, anti-democratic actions with no understanding of how badly it will damage their own status or party has been made clear multiple times since the 2010 crop was elected, so if you're thinking that voices of reason or simple self-preservation will temper their eventual "decision," good freakin' luck with that.