Doesn't Impeachment mean we get Cheney?

The Horror!

but also we need a dem. congress. Otherwise the morons will get to choose someone worse.

Unless he is impeached too.

and resigns

How far down do we have to go to find someone acceptable?

http://www.cafepress.com/scarebaby/936290

:scared:

In their order in the line of succesion:

Cheney
Hastert
Ted Stevens
Condoleezza Rice (State)
Snow (Treasur)
Rumsfeld (Defense)
Gonzales (AG)
Norton (Interior)
Johanns (Agriculture)
Leavitt (HHS)
Jackson (HUD)
Mineta (Transportation)
Bodman (Energy)
Spellings (Education)
Nicholson (VA)
Chertoff (Homeland Security)

Impeachment is NOT the answer!

At least he's a Democrat. But we gotta impeach 11 of the fuckers to get him!

If, in the astronomically remote case that we somehow get enough Repugnicans to cross the line and impeach both Shrub and Cheney, Hastert would become President.

But realistically, there is absolutely NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER that impeachment will occur unless we take back the House in 2006. In that case, old Denny wouldn't be breaking out the change-of-address forms for his move to 1600 Penn - it would be the Hon. (and I do mean honorable) Nancy Pelosi.

big diff -- and not in that dangerous animal sort of way either.

won't make a difference...

It's not just to get him out of office because we don't like him. It's because presidents are not above the law and presidents need to be removed from power as a form of punishment when they break the law. It isn't moot at all from a social justice point of view.

http://www.cafepress.com/scarebaby/658010

It's about the message of the law.

but even if not, there's always the lingering CIA leak investigation to trip him up ...

Bush is just a puppet.

then lock them all up!
Oh and; go F yourself mr. Cheney.

But really, that would be an improvement if you think about it. Bush could at least be polished a little and propped up when necessary. Cheney has no personal charisma at all.

Besides, it won't be long before Cheney is in the impeachmnet crosshairs too. And "President Hastert" is a punchline just waiting for the right joke.

he knows that he would be next if he didn't. The repukes would not be as united behind him because they want to keep their jobs.

He couldn't keep up with the pace of the presidency. No way.

And think how stupid he'd look wearing a parka and mittens in the Rose Garden on the 4th of July.

See this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2322795&mesg_id=2322795

Thanks for posting this.

the chimp gets impeached. Does the chimp have authority to appoint someone outside the line of succession to replace him? Such as C*ndi, Jenna or whoever?

would need to confirm the new VP appointment.

Why don't we concentrate on winning the mid-term elections!?! This is how the plan works. We, as a Party, formulate a unified policy offering positive, well-thought solutions to today's issues...war, terrorism, economy, jobs, environment, etc, etc. Then, we can point out how our policy, let's call it a platform, is better than theirs. That way, we can point out the failures of their policy (which you all want to do) WHILE promoting, POSITIVELY, how our policy is better!

How is that plan? Too boring? Too nice? Too naive? Yeahhhhhhh....you're right.

IMPEACH!!!!!!!!

:eyes:

or a feasible candidate to come forward and say, "There IS a better way, and here it is."

And then tell me WHAT they would do better, or at least differently.

Give me a realistic, comprehensive plan and platform (not just soundbites) of how they will:

* Protect our country against NBC terrorism
* Defeat Al Qaeda
* Protect our environment
* Reduce our dependency on Middle East oil
* Reduce our budget deficit without crushing the economy
* Provide job training and transition assistance to workers who lose jobs to outsourcing
* Help the millions of uninsured Americans get health insurance--without adding to the deficit

In short, I'm looking for a Common Sense Party, or a candidate, that cares about the things I think most Americans care about. I want a government that cares about its citizens--ALL of us--and will do what's RIGHT for the country, not what's right for the political party or a particular group of donors.

So far, I'm not hearing or seeing it. At present, I'm fed up with both Democrats AND Republicans (and I've been both, in my years). And all the 3rd Parties I see are laughable.

There were alot of candidates that talked about all of that last year. Perhaps the reason you're not hearing or seeing it is because you keep waiting for the teevee to tell you, or a "liberal" blog, or some other media outlet; instead of getting your information direct from the candidates' mouths.

edit: grammar

. . . a lame lame lame duck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession#Current_order

Some of the issues for some of those in the line:

Cheney - Plame case, DSM, Halliburton, health, NSA spying
Hastert - Turkey problems
Stevens - bridges to nowhere,
Rice - Plame, NSA spying on Americans, DSM and many more
Snow - resigning soon ? - Smirky hates him
Rumsfeld - where do I begin
Gonzales - Torture, NSA Spying
Norton - Abramoff
Johanns - continuation of mad cow issues
Leavitt - continuation of preparedness issues, vaccine availability

huh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Hastert

During his time in Congress, it is alleged that Hastert has worked against legislation that the Turkish government has considered to be against its interests, particularly initiatives related to the Armenian genocide of 1915-23. He has frequently travelled to Turkey.

In October 2000, Hastert withdrew at the last minute a promised House vote on a resolution to recognize the Armenian killings. Hastert claimed that this was prompted by a telephone conversation with then-President Bill Clinton in which "Clinton said he was 'deeply concerned' about the language in the document... Hastert said Clinton had warned of 'possible far-reaching negative consequences for the United States' if the House voted on the legislation." (<2>). Hastert defended pulling the vote, saying "I believe the Armenian people suffered a historic tragedy, and that this resolution was a fitting condemnation of those events. But the president of the United States, the commander and chief of our Armed Forces, has asked us not to bring this resolution to the House floor. This is not an idle request. We all know that the situation in the Middle East is unusually tense."(<3>) He blocked similar legislation in 2004. <4>

In August 2005, an article published in Vanity Fair reported that FBI translator turned whistleblower Sibel Edmonds alleged that she listened to wiretaps in which Turkish nationals boasted that Hastert had accepted bribes.<5> A Hastert spokesperson has called the article "nonsense" <6>. The claims have not been proven or disproven.

Impeached, prosecuted, convicted for High Crimes and Misdeamnors, and Treason, then sentenced life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

on articles of impeachment are removal from office, and strip that person from holding any post in the United States government in the future.

to get away with the same stuff they let * get away with cuz they thought he was nice.

after Bush replaces him, with a suitably bland VP who the Dems could otherwise filibuster to block, (Rice? Lieberman? ) then you impeach Bush...although I could live with Hastert, especially if Dems take back at least one house of Congress. (of course, if they do this before impeachment, we could get President Pelosi...) Whoever is in the WH after the impeachment would be fairly cuckolded, moreso than Ford was after Nixon...I'm not sure the country is ready or able to handle the simultaneous impeachment of both President and VP; sequential, maybe, but simultaneous, no.

get Stevens, that guy's nuts!

This will never happen. The more and more we try to slam him the better he comes out looking and smelling. They have him so guarded and protected it would take a coup to get him and his associates out of the White House

democrats win BOTH house & senate in 2006. The repukes of today are
different than during Nixon. They are all joined at the hip, all
frigging partisan bastards.

People see Cheney for the serpent he is. On his own he's less dangerous than AWOL.