I'm Opposed To Impeaching Bush, Here's Why:

If he is impeached, you can be sure that Dick will step down if it looks like * will be removed.

Then a new Veep will be ready to take the highest office in the land. That person will then be the incumbent in 08, with the potential to run for 2 more terms. That would be a disaster.

Incumbency has it's advantages in an election. In 08 we want to have 2 candidates (theirs and ours) running and we don't want to have to take on an incumbent with the advantage of not only looking "Presidential" but being president, having Air Force One, and God help us all if that person were to have good ratings in the polls. (Just because Ford wasn't popular when Nixon resigned doesn't mean that the right candidate put in their wouldn't be popular)

Also, Impeachment is a POLITICAL remedy to "high crimes and misdemeanors", and not a criminal justice system remedy to crimes. Impeachment would also exact a price politically I believe on the Democrats as the Corporate MSM would be shouting "revenge of the Dems" as if it were all about Clinton (still after all these years) so I oppose a political solution to dealing with the crimes these bastards have committed.

Instead, let's work for Dem majorities in the house and senate, then we can keep the incompetent, evil bastard(s) in check, and they will be weak and limping along, and the chances of a Dem getting into the White House in 08 will be greatly improved.

JMO

and the list doesn't end there

Huckabee, Romney, and who knows who else?

And having Air Force One, The White House and the other trimmings of the office project a power that the incumbent usually doesn't have.

I thought Kerry was far and away better than *, and yet * got a lot of votes.

He barely beat Kerry, and he may have even cheated (I think he did) but I don't know that even with his cheating that he would have been that far behind Kerry, so an awful lot of people found him to be the one they wanted in office. Why was that? Because he had the office already!

But by law, the next one in line is the Speaker of the House, do you seriously believe that Hastert,
the Drew Carey look alike would really be a serious contender for president in 2008. He does less as the speaker then he did as a reguluar representative.

By the way of those that you listed only Rice is in the line of succession. SO I'm not sure how McCain, Hagel, or Warner would even come close to the White House.

Just an observation.

But if the Veep moves into the Prez, then He/She gets to appoint a Veep and congress gets to give advice and consent like any other presidential nomination.

The Speaker would only ascend if the Prez and V.Prez were no longer in office and they hadn't had the time or ability to appoint successors.

If Bush is impeached, Cheney gets in, then appoints a new VP (or vice versa if Dick goes first ). There won't be a time when both are gone at the same time.

It won't happen anyway. Win 2006 and again in 2008

He was SecState

and he only thought he was in charge in his own mind

technically Reagan never invoked the 25th, but had he, it would have been GHWB

and GHWB would have picked a new veep.

when they come to escort him out of the White House and he barricades himself in the Oval Office and they break down the doors and drag him out screaming and crying for his mama. I want that to be the last image everybody has of this piece of shit (other than the one of him in an orange prison jumpsuit clearing brush under the watchful eye of a very large mean guard). I'd burn a DVD of that and watch it every day as I LMAO.

to see him having a shit fit because congress shuts him down, reverses his pet projects, and then see his legacy be a big fat ZERO.

I think that would hurt him sufficiently, and then when he leaves office, have the Justice Dept under a Democratic administration file charges and prosecute him for his crimes in office!

Send his ass to jail.

See impeachment won't send him to prison. It would just likely lead to his resignation before he could be removed.

that impeachment has to happen overnight.

Let's say (hope) we get one house of Congress in '06. Then we can start all manner of investigations in '07.

Impeachment proceedings start in '08. Even if Bush resigns (and given how he has reacted to other scandals, I'd doubt it, unless he caved under pressure), and got impeached, he wouldn't have to step down. But assuming he did, and the office changed out, you've got a temporary President for 6 months to a year, barely time to get settled, much less mount a credible campaign for the end of the year.

But the fever is getting stronger now.

Of course, I don't think that it could happen without majorities in both houses of congress.

I still think that we'd be better off to win congress back, hold him in check and not be seen in some way as the party of revenge ('cause you know the corporate MSM would be shouting that from the rooftops)

We have a chance to really change course.

Doesn't matter what pucker butt they throw the office to--the only difference will be the nameplate on the desk--oh and the rug in the oval office.

but remember, at one time * had a majority of people that thought he was okay too

Put the whole regime in prison for 20-to-life. :grr:

People found his feigned open and down to earth demeanor refreshing after the imperial and secretive Nixon.

Two things torpedoed Ford, though. The pardon of Nixon, which may have seemed like a good idea to a lot of people at the time, turned out to be a colossal mistake, allowing not only Nixon to get off scot free, but also most of his enablers, who kept coming back to poison succeeding GOP administrations. Second, Ford was just as unwilling as Nixon had been to take OPEC on and devise strategies to soften the blow the oil shocks were dealing to the middle and working classes. All Ford came up with were WIN buttons, "Whip Inflation Now," as though most of us had a fucking choice what we were getting gouged for goods and services. I think it was to motivate us all to stop being pests and asking for raises to keep pace with the prices we were being charged!

An incumbent might or might not have an advantage if he succeeds Stupid. If he keeps Stupid's staff and policies, forget it. If he makes a clean sweep, appoints his own staff, and works to revers the egregious idiocy of this administration, then he might have a chance. Might. It's a long shot.

Effing thing had me doing pushups in gym class to meet some kind of government participation requirement. :eyes:

Also the media gave Ford a "bumbler/fumbler" reputation, though I don't remember what brought that on.

It also launched Chevy Chase's career on SNL as he played Ford falling and Chevy is the king of pratfalls!

The incumbent theory makes some sense (that it might give them more credibility) but it didn't work for Ford!

And remember, Bush's daddy was an incumbent and he lost to Clinton!

True, a lot of people didn't like it when Ford pardoned Nixon. And at the time of the election, I think people just wanted someone in charge who seemed honest and Carter did fit that description.

Even if Bush is impeached, I think the incumbent would still have the same situation as Ford encountered.........unless Bush's replacement does something pretty dramatic! If he continues with the same staff and the same policies as Bush, I still don't think the incumbent theory would work in their favor.

About 70% of the population now thinks the country is moving in the wrong direction. Do you really think if they change the man but not the policies, that their opinions will change? I don't.

"An incumbent might or might not have an advantage if he succeeds Stupid. If he keeps Stupid's staff and policies, forget it. If he makes a clean sweep, appoints his own staff, and works to revers the egregious idiocy of this administration, then he might have a chance. Might. It's a long shot."

A replacement would grant a pardon to the criminals, just like Ford did. That the country allowed the criminal Nixon to be pardoned allows Bush to function without fear. Also so many of the current crop of criminals were trained in the Nixon Whitehouse, like Cheney and Rumsfield, and even papa Bush in the CIA at the time. Had they all been hung then, we wouldn't be reliving it now.

So I also say; No impeachment. To the Hague with them all, or better yet, like Nixon said, let them twist slowly in the wind. Along the National Mall would be nicely reminiscent of Mussolini.

Let's see these fuckers in jail when we have the white house, senate, and the house on our side of the aisle.

Impeachment or Not Bush would going pick someone who was not going to run in 2008. The reason is Agenda politics. It would every wannabe senatoro off no end if he picked anyone with aspirations because it so skews the race and dries up fundraising completely. It would also piss off heavy contributors.


He would be even more lame duck then he is already. He might asw ell spend the remainder of his term writing a memoir.. opps I forgot he does not have that skill yet.

don't worry about that. These presidential terms will not suffer from a lack of documentation. Some of it will take years to get, though, and I'll probably still be reading about new revelations 40 years from now.

up "national security" for 50 years or more.

Hell, they are still releasing Kennedy documents now that weren't released due to "national security"

Who knows, * might try to seal his papers forever

besides the early presidential directive changing the secrecy regarding release of documents so that the original president, the sitting president, or, iirc, a descendent of that president, could veto release, Bush also illegally forced out the National Archivist (I did an article on this a couple of years ago) and replaced him with someone of his own choosing who, incidentally, was not particularly well regarded in his profession (translation: Bush crony), contrary to the requirements of the congressional act that established the archivist position.

or how not to run a government.

He is the total opposite of Carter.

Carter appointed people who were right for the job based on qualifications, and not cronyism.

Bush appoints people who are wrong for the job and unqualified, based on cronyism.

I still personally maintain that Carter had the most qualified and professional administration, but he didn't play the Washington game, hence he got the shaft from many places, including his own party.

Jesus H. Christ! Whatever Bush has done, Cheney is also guilty of.

This is what we'll do:

-Win back Congress in November.

-When the new Congress is sworn in we'll get the investigations going.

-Impeach Cheney first.

-Force Bush to appoint McCain as VP.

-Impeach Bush.

-McCain becomes President.

It's the Nixon/Agnew/Ford scenario. Would you be okay with that?

I didn't really go with the Cheney becoming president, although that would be terrible.

I can't think of a worse situation than having McCain in the White House!

He would draw support from a lot of moderate Dems, and moderate Repubs, he might lose the far right vote, but I can see him beating a lot of our candidates.

He would have trouble getting the nomination, but if he were the incumbent I think he would have it in the bag for the nomination and then he would be difficult to beat.

I don't think it would be the Nixon/Agnew/Ford scenario. I think McCain would be hard to beat whereas Ford would be tough.

An even worse scenario. Bush is impeached and either is removed or resigns. Dick becomes Prez. He picks a candidate (McCain) pardons Bush, then he resigns just before the elections.

I want checkmate, game over,
I do not want to play the game
just to keep them in check.

and the rules allow for checkmate, but they also allow for the "king" to appoint a replacement.

so why not nail the bastards after they leave office?

and consolidate even more power.
2006 and the speaker of the house could be a democrat and the next in line for being president.

remember the constitution and the 25th amendment?

If the Veep takes presidency

he will be able to appoint a new veep

it doesn't fall to the speaker unless BOTH are unable to continue in office, say for instance they were both incapacitated at the same time.

that isn't likely since Cheney is always in an undisclosed location with his shadow government.

if you want to impeach, keep pushing for it. it may happen. i may be wrong. of course, i may be right.

the fact of the matter is that it is quite unlikely that there will be impeachment, but who the hell knows, i never thought they'd actually impeach Clinton for a blowjob, but they did.

Impeach them both
and war crimes are not a game
or is that just politics also?

Nail them and send them to the hague.

and so you've got them in the Hague (which ain't gonna happen)

and you've got their replacements in office creating the "illusion of change"

with the trimmings of office

and the advantage of incumbency

no war crimes aren't a game, but they won't go to the Hague.

Tell me how that would work?

to hold them in check until 2009
When in 2007 we would have a democratic speaker of the house be next in line for the presidency?
Impeachment won't even start until we take back the house in 2007 and proceedings even longer
but you still want to wait two more years after that to hold the rapists in check.
Get the ball rolling ASAP to show the public the real crimes then you guarantee a Democratic president in 2009
And then, the hague could happen by 2009-2011


Ridiculous appeasement enabling logic one would use on an alcoholic physically abusive father.
Yeah, we will just keep his drinking and abuse in check and wait.

substituted father for mother in edit

Please read the 25th amendment

please understand the succession rules!

They would appoint their own successors, and the Dem speaker would have nothing to do with it!

The speaker would only take office as prez if the prez and veep were incapacitated or unable to continue in office.

Do you really think that is going to happen? They would appoint their own replacements just like Nixon got to when he resigned. If Bush for one moment thought he was going to be removed, he would resign, Cheney would be prez, would name a veep.

Even if they were both being impeached, they would appoint their own replacements.

Your statement about "ridiculous appeasement" is just plain OFFENSIVE to me!

I'm not saying what you think I'm saying! I'd love to get rid of these jokers, but it isn't going to happen in a way that doesn't leave Repukes in power in the White House, it just isn't going to happen. So, my original argument still stands. Reread my original post, instead of just a few lines and trying to meld it in with your beliefs about succession of the presidency, you would get it.

Edited to reduce the attack back tone of this post.

Impeachment is a statement. If a blow job can mean Clinton's impeachment, lying about war and corruption should - at the very least - involve impeachment.

Conviction through the Senate is another matter. I'd like him to be removed, because I doubt that riding Bush's coattails would involve upward momentum. However, mere impeachment is not enough to create the harms you suggest.

the removal

but it could

actually I think the likelihood of impeachment is low

I think the likelihood of Cheney resigning is higher than that

I think the likelihood of them trying to appoint (annoint) a replacement that they think could win election is possible as well.

is that Bush and the GOP will do so much damage and rile up the American people so much that the Republican Party will be destroyed for at least a generation.

over.. so quickly.. then the senate majority leader..

President
Vice President
Speaker of House
Senate Pro Tem

Now, that doesn't mean that if you impeach, and more importantly, remove Bush, then Cheney and Hastert will automatically be in.

Because Cheney could and would appoint someone else.

If you watch West Wing, then you remember that when President Bartlett inacted the 25th amendment, the speaker of the House took over. Why? Because there was no vice President because V.P. Hoines had just recently resigned due to infidelities and telling his mistress state secrets.

the usual line of succession would have been to the Veep, and the Veep would have nominated a new Veep.

The succession line is done to make sure there is a transition of government in the event of an emergency. Such as both POTUS and VPOTUS being incapacitated

so its about more than politics for me. It starts with impeachment, and then we jail the bastards.

certainly not a legal one

In Clinton's impeachment trial for instance, Asa Hutchinson was a prosecutor (house manager) and his brother Tim was on the jury (Senator)

Now Tim was at that time having an affair with his staffer, and living in an apartment with his brother Asa.

What court in the US would a) allow a prosecutor and jury member to be related, much less brothers, much less roomates. And Asa had to know that his brother was bedding down the staffer since they lived together.

Impeachment is a political circus, complete with clowns and acrobatic flying nuts.

The "rule of law" really has little to do with impeachment since it stems from popular sentiment more than any desire to get to the bottom of a crime. (I give you the Bill Clinton gets impeached for getting a blowjob trial in the Senate as evidence)

Impeachment is a political remedy and unless we had real honest to goodness legislators who were there to stand up for Americans, it isn't going to change.

And in the meantime, it means the asshole can't keep "pardoning" his buddies, like he's going to do with Abramoff and DeLay and Lay and ... dear God, the list is just too damn long.

Bottom line, if you aren't going to vote to impeach, you aren't getting either my time or my money.

ON EDIT: Deleting some stuff cause I was just in a bad mood when I wrote it. Sorry! :)

Impeachment is a trial. Dirt begats dirt begats dirt. Little assholes running for cover, ratting out their asshole bosses. Shit flying everywhere. The public getting sicker and sicker about what their votes brought. Rightards vomiting hateful lies in a manner that makes the current corporate media "discourse" look like the writings of Plato. Revelations of coruption that will make even DU blush. Whoever remains standing will be in such a weak position that even the pathetic Democratic House and Senate leadership will be able to boss him/her around.

Bring it the fuck ON!

BRING IT ON MUTHERFUCKERS!!! :grr:

CHIMPEACH!!!

BeeeeRITE light. Watch the cockroaches BURN!! I wanna see the rank face of SHAME on every * voter. I wanna see the good Germans look like their spritual benefactors did in ninteenmuthafukkenfortyeight. I wanna feed from their SHAME. I wanna hook up their SOULS with jumper cables and drain the shame out of them to power my TV showing videos of their FUCKIN' SHAME!

Kick ass and rock 'n' roll bro!

:D

I'm one, mean SOB these days!... ever since the Amerikkkans punked us here in New Orleans and helped to destroy our democracy!

Bring it on is right! ImpeachImpeachImpeachImpeachImpeachImpeach!!!!!!!!

See the "chimpeach" in "ImpeachImpeachImpeachImpeach"?

:D

any potential disadvantage. Just my opinion.

and some have made me think about some different angles I hadn't thought of

but I'm still not sure a) that any movement will appear even if the Dems take both houses of congress to actually impeach; or that b) it would be strategically an advantage to do so.

:shrug:

I joined one night after my son's soccer practice.

I've always thought it was a little strange, maybe I'm really ambidextrous, or really left handed, but I have always kicked left footed, and I'm right handed.

So Southpawkicker means I kick with my left foot.

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution states:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.




But I'm sure someone will correct me. I see "shall", here. But I suppose I've missed something somewhere. For example, he isn't convicted until impeachment is brought. But Bush has already made himself guilty, prima facia, by admitting to warrantless wiretapping. I believe we don't have a choice in the matter. We must impeach.

that the Constitution requires we use. The only other alternative the founding fathers left us is rebellion. The big flaw I think the founding fathers had was they did not see the ascent of political parties that may, when in the majority, protect an administration guilty of high crimes and misdemeaners. Nor do I think they foresaw corporate personhood and influence.

like career tracked politicians
the amount of money that lobbyists would spend on getting what they want
corporate personhood
appointment of pResidents, destroying the sovereignty of a state's electoral process, but only on a one time basis and only for that state.

I just can't imagine that they would ever have imagined what might be in the future.

They didn't even know if their fledgling government would survive long at all.