I hate to admit it, but I grew up watching Jack Cafferty on local TV news. Even then Jack had this pretentious air about him. His attitude was always “the viewer is an idiot.” I don’t watch him on CNN, I guess I smartened up.

Jack always tries to act the “hard nosed reporter.” I always thought that a true reporter was supposed to be impartial but that was the case, Cafferty wouldn’t be calling for Congress to Impeach President Bush. Which Begs the question, why is this pretentious Clown on National TV? More Below:

Jack Cafferty Ponders ‘Why Won’t Congress Consider Impeaching Pres. Bush?’ By Terry Ann Rendon

Created 2008-06-12 19:15
Sounding like an impeachment obsessed left-wing blogger Jack Cafferty asked
on CNN.com “Why won’t Congress consider impeaching Pres. Bush?” [1] In his June 12th blog posting he writes, “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi long ago made it known that impeachment is “off the table.” This is a joke. We have a president who has abused the power of his office over and over again. It’s what got the Democrats elected to the majority in Congress in 2006.” It’s funny how he never mentions exactly how George W. Bush has abused his power. It should somehow be evident to all of us. If a contributor to a news organization and their professional Web site is going to claim the president of the United States has abused his power and therefore should be impeached then shouldn’t Cafferty back it up with some tangible proof. That’s what a person with journalistic integrity would do. Impeachment talk by liberals is designed to rile up anger in people and if the comments attached his post are any indication that is exactly what Cafferty did. Cafferty is not the only cable news personality talking about impeachment. On
Tuesday’s episode of “Countdown with Keith Olbermann, ” the host theorized that perhaps the impeachment trials of Bill Clinton were in some way done to immunize George W. Bush. Here’s [2] a partial transcript:

OLBERMANN: But one political history, recent history, when President Clinton was impeached, the Republicans not only hobbled the sitting president, but they seemed to have succeeded in putting the Democrats on the defensive to the point that they would not even consider hearings on such a thing now, in the face of, at least, large volumes of evidence if not overwhelming evidence. It‘s almost as if the impeachment of Clinton, if you want to be
utterly conspiratory (ph) on – I‘m not saying I‘m doing it this
way – but see, it reads as history, reading backwards, as if the
Clinton impeachment was arranged to preclude the impeachment of the, you know, completely malevolent Republican president who followed him. Did the Republicans achieve pretty much everything they‘ve wanted, they could have dreamt of or maybe something couldn‘t have dreamt of by impeaching Bill Clinton? FINEMAN: Yes. Well, I don‘t even think the most conspiratorial of them could have thought this scenario up. But it is true that we have about one impeachment in this (ph) generation, it seems.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Lid updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Wow, Keith. So the evil Republicans knew George W. Bush was going to come in and commit “high crimes and misdemeanors,” therefore, they decided to put Bill Clinton trial. Did these clairvoyant Republicans also know about the 9/11 terrorist attacks before they happened?

Links: [1] http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/12/why-won%e2%80%99t-congress-consider-effort-to-impeach-bush/ [2] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25098178/