I put the odds of impeachment at at least 50/50. Given that even this will lose its charm after a while:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/us/politics/house-republicans-to-vote-again-on-repealing-health-care.html?hp

Here's a question I saw posted. Should the women be prosecuted for murder, too? Not in terms of the current law, but as a matter of how the law should be?

I love this site for threads like this.

"Going negative" is a way of life for Christie. He probably doesn't even think of it as a tactic.

You don't have to have any seminary education, although that never hurts, you have to have a confirmed calling to preach the Gospel and have to be licensed by the local body. 

How does someone confirm a calling?

See, this is why it's hard to be a good sport about the Benghazi hearings.

[Rick Santorum was worst US senator of not just my home state of PA, but America history.]

Rick Santorum was worst US senator of not just my home state of PA, but America history.

Rick Santorum is not for "small limited government".  At least Rand Paul didn't vote for the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, the Iraq War, DOMA, etc.

Good God how could any one vote for just a bigoted, racist, homophobic, sexist person like Santorum is beyond me.

I think that may be a bit of an overreaction there's been corruption, intense racism, and people alot more radical then Rick Santorum who have served throughout the 267 years of our nations history.

Yeah, I don't have a lot of respect for Rick Santorum, but he was no Thaddeus Bilbo at least.

Loads of people find gays icky and don't want it in their family, and lack empathy for gays, and the fact that overlaps with religious belief is convenient.

Torie, if you give me Elijah Cummings I will ask you to comment on Bob Corker's comments last week to the House as they consider additional hearings.

Your post confuses me. Sorry. Please elaborate.

Sure. Was just going to find the link.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/05/08/18125854-i-feel-like-i-know-what-happened-in-benghazi

Ignore the Maddow framing and just read the quote.

At some point further hearings are like that 29th, 30th, or 31st House vote to repeal Obamacare. It feels good and excites the base. But if you ask, what does this accomplish, what do we hope to learn, that we haven't done already, we can disagree on the cost-benefit analysis. Meanwhile, Republicans are CLEARLY flogging this as a partisan issue for fundraising and getting people good and angry outside of any arguments about state dept behavior, so I can't view this as a pure good government play. How many times has Lindsay Graham been on TV to talk about this?

Torie, if you give me Elijah Cummings I will ask you to comment on Bob Corker's comments last week to the House as they consider additional hearings.

Jared, welcome to the forum!

Phil, I won't be baited into a personal 1:1 with you by personal attacks. Let's stick to the topic, i.e. why Benghazi is a big nothingburger. There's more on the other thread.

I'm not too familiar here with the geography but is Warren here serving as a bridge or is that cut helping make a suburban concentric circle around Cincinnati? Does the Warren/Montgomery border also delineate a difference in mentalities between Dayton and Cincy?

I understand the position. Back before Bush invaded Iraq and showed how colossally he could screw up whole countries, his administration churned out minor scandals and cover ups which reinforced to me and my colleagues at Daily Kos how he was unfit for office, and it was frustrating that others didn't see it or didn't care. So now Republicans are dealing with an administration that has been extraordinary clean and, for a large bureaucracy, well run, and when something happens that wouldn't cause a reporter to bat an eye during the bush term, they feel it's a combination of Watergate and the Holocaust.

Phil, I note your outrage. I remember how worked up you got about the government screwing up things weekly in Iraq, leading to thousands of deaths, so your moral stand here carries a lot of weight.

Republicans are upset because they think that if anything covered up had been released in fall 2012, America's eyes would have been opened to Obama's treacherous incompetence (which they've been aware of all along) and he would have lost. That's reason 1 why they consider this the new Watergate--they truly believe this disqualified Democrats from power and have lost sight of how trivial this individual incident is in the larger scheme of a war, as tragic as it is. They have forgotten this argument even though it underlies several years of averting their eyes to the millions of lives destroyed by incompetence and callousness in Iraq.

Part 2, to restate the obvious, is about throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Hillary Clinton's campaign before she becomes the inevitable next president.

How many hearings, or hours of hearings, have been held on this issue?

How does it compare to time spent on other issues, like Syria, Guantanamo, background checks, student loans, or any other number of issues that are of significance to America?

I suppose it doesn't matter because the House of Representatives doesn't have an interest in passing legislation or making policy, but even if your only goal is to try to make the Obama administration look bad and target Hillary Clinton's nascent campaign, it would be better to at least deal with an actual issue of policy rather than this nothingburger of a mistake. If acknowledging that stupid witch hunts that have had more than their share of time in the sun devalue our already cheapened polity makes me excessively partisan, I guess I'm the bad guy.

Well, that's what an investigation is for. Why were these revisions made, who made them and who knew about them? Did then Secretary Clinton and the President know it was an attack but agreed with this ridiculous idea to blame it on some movie? Is the whistleblower that claimed he briefed Hillary that it was a terrorist attack credible? Why did the administration insist on removing any mention of this being an attack?

Who cares?

NRSC Ad against Markey

LOL. "Oh yeah, he's bad!"

Horrible ad.

Wow.

Bad, but not quite as bad as Krazen.

Krazen's more cynical.

Dick Harpootlian is a creep and saying you will send a dark-skinned person "back to wherever the hell [they] came from" is loaded with subtext - subtext which, ironically, your party usually refuses to admit exists (because discrimination today only exists when it's directed at Christians or at white men).

Still not as bad as when a Republican state senator threw subtext out the window and just called Ms. Haley a "raghead" on a talk radio show.

I never refused to admit it exists.  I just refuse to believe that every little thing that people say has bigoted subtexts.  If Dick Harpootlian were a Republican, you guys would be all over this and accusing him of using racist dog whistles.  

Who's defending Harpootlian?

He's made anti-gay cracks in the past, too.

Looking at the list of states with constitutional amendment initiative processes, I could definitely see Florida in 2016.

I can not bring myself to be optimistic that we could win a referendum in Florida that soon. Maybe things can change by then but it's not a great state for this.

Calling Brown unobjectionable isn't quite accurate. He was always considered a weak incumbent.

But if he wants to argue that the results show that a district that has swung in the past (like MS-1 and old LA-6 once did) showed Republicans still holding their own, he's got a point. It's not 2006 for certain.

Weird to see a special election thread where every other post isn't ignored.