It's the freakin' ice cream cone all over again.

I'm a little surprised to be bringing up the subject of Grover Norquist's ice cream cone again, and yet this recent quote leaves me little choice:

NJ: What if the Democrats still have control? What’s your scenario then?
NORQUIST: Obama can sit there and let all the tax [cuts] lapse, and then the Republicans will have enough votes in the Senate in 2014 to impeach. The last year, he’s gone into this huddle where he does everything by executive order. He’s made no effort to work with Congress.

Note that the trigger for the impeachment of President Obama would be allowing the tax cuts to  expire, not any high crime or misdemeanor that the president might have committed. Charles Pierce points to the reality that for today's GOP, impeachment for simply being a Democratic president is not new, while Melissa McEwan reminds us that in reference to bipartisanship, the colorful (where "colorful" means "gross") analogy Norquist once used was "date rape".  And yet I look at this idea that "expiration of tax cuts = impeachment", and all I see is "ice cream cone." 

This is the tantrum of a child whose ice cream is is being eaten--or maybe someone has drunk his milkshake. It's the response of someone who thought the tax cuts should be forever! (Even though as voted on, we are already past the initial sunset date for them.)  And of course, were the tax cuts to expire, it would not be Obama's decision alone--it would also be due to the actions of Congress, and also a result of the fact that the tax cuts became unpopular because they benefited the most wealthy among us, when we as a nation could afford it least.  For a man whose main goals seem to be "tax cuts FOREVVVARRR!!!" an "naming stuff after Ronald Reagan", this must very nearly resemble the infant outrage he experienced when his father first bit that ice cream cone. To put it in nearly Freudian terms, President Obama becomes a stand-in for the bad Daddy government. 

Or something like that.  Just throwing it out there.