Richard Lugar for President '07, OK, really an impeachment diary

Yes, this is an Impeachment diary.


Cutting a deal that pencils in Senator Lugar as president is the way to go. Impeach & Remove Cheney, and tell the president he is allowed to pick Senator Lugar as VP. Yes I am being hopeful. I offer scant more hope below the fold....


Recently I have come to value the concept that Nancy Pelosi was spot on when she said she was taking impeachment off the table. Since the Congresswoman is 3rd in line it is inappropriate for her to talk about the "I" word. In fact, any impeachment process that elevates a democrat to the White House will be viewed as a coup, and would likely cripple the Democratic party for a generation. Those that might consider Robert Byrd instead of Nancy Pelosi still face the problem that the process will be veiwed as a democratic coup. Imagine all the bad blood that would create....

If republicans think that DEMS want to elevate Pelosi to the White House, not one will be joining us Dems at the table, thats for damn sure. Which is why I support an effort whose net result would be to remove Cheney, then Bush, and place a republican in the White House, before the end of this year. In fact I will go as far as saying that if impeachment & removal of at least Cheney doesn't happen in '07, it aint gonna happen at all.

Penciling in Senator Lugar should help depoliticize the process. And may bring a few republicans to the table, to at least to listen, lord knows its going to be tuff to gets 2/3rds of the Senate to vote for Cheneys removal. But we do have some momentum, the polls are improving each week & more congress members are signing on to:


IIRC the House does need to task the judiciary committee, before John Conyers can have a chance at working any of his magic. And there is the desire to get it over with quickly, no one wants a drawn out process, and the country will feel the need to get into the presidential race. If we knew we had the votes in the senate to remove, it could theoretically could be done in one day.

Whether any of this plays out in 2007, Nancy Pelosi is not the one to be talking impeachment. Members of the House need to be told of their job, ours is to remind them what that job is. SO contact your reps on impeachment, you might also mention to them that you think Richard Lugar would be a good choice to replace Dick Cheney........

Richard Lugar for President '07

Maybe there is some help on the way:


im...peach...him im...peach...him im...peach...him




If you contact your reps in DC, you mention that Senator Lugar would make a good place holder. The Frame is important, its time to start thinking about how to proceed after impeachment and removal, Senator Lugar might be part of that.

cross posted from D-KOS, please visit & rec.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/21/225241/108

Lugar has been on and off again my senator since I came of voting age (that is I have lived in and out of state my other senators included Levin, Boxer and Feinstein.) I worked in DC in the mid-eighties when Lugar was considered a statesman in the senate. He was head of the foreign relations committee (in a close election Helms promised to step aside in the f.r. committee and take over the agriculture committee to better demonstrate his serving his constituents.) There was periodic talk that maybe one day he would run for president.

He was principled. He sometimes bucked the wishes of Reagan. He was respected and respectable.

Then came the bush years. Keep in mind that Lugar is an institution in Indiana. He could defy bush standing on his head and still walk breezily to reelection. Folks who met with him and his "people" prior to the escalation and invasion in Iraq said that he expressed great concerns, that he was pushing the pentagon to have post war planning in place before an invasion. He was one of the few, working on compromise amendments to narrow the scope of the vote on the eve of the IWR vote.

Then, something happened. He kept talking right - but started cowering and voting time and time again to support the president - even on votes about which he had expressed opposition, he caved. Again - he could have voted no naked on the senate floor and he would be reelected in Indiana.

There has been speculation back home that something is seriously off with Lugar these days. He is not the same principled Senator that served in the eighties and could vote against a very popular republican president. Does bushco have something on him? Not sure what - but there is little explaining his behavior - it isn't due to political calculus which I believe is the case for some GOP senators.

For that reason, I wouldn't want an unprincipled, cowering to the whims of the administration, and possibly being blackmailed/threatened senator to become vice president.

I lost all respect for him..

as a good constituents, My wife & I called his office and urged him to vote against this piece of legislation...he did otherwise.

and usually, @ least in respects of Sen. Lugar, we'd receive a letter from his office around 3 weeks later, explaining the reasoning for his vote. not that time....so yes salin, I concur..something's happened to our once good Senator.

and please speak to the general theme of the diary.

beholden to the administration - while acceptable to republicans; someone of stature to all. Not sure who fits. I would say Hagel - but I don't think he would be accepted by republicans. Bob Dole, perhaps? One of the Senators from Maine (might appeal to the GOP to show that they are more accepting of women) - but I think that they are still seen by dems (self included) as not strong enough to stand up to the president/neocons.

If we remove Cheney it is vital we talk about a replacement, if it means a back room deal to get it done so be it. NO sitting VP or pres has been impaeched & removed, so we are in unchartered territory here.

More important is the frame:

if Bush and Cheney are removed who would be president ?

Repubs need to be forced to start considering this point....

but instead you have provided a well reasoned response....

I'm a 3rd shifter and I had to wake up early today an attend a rally...

I heard talk of something similar to this very situation a month or so ago Air America, I believe it pertained to Cheney stepping down due to health concerns and then being replaced.

The person they were talking about replacing Cheney at the time was John Danforth, a former Senator from Missouri.

I can't recall which show discussed it, maybe Rachel Maddow's or The Young Turks?

He lowered his stature with non-repubs with his unrepentant support of Clarence Thomas, but later (after leaving the senate) redeemed himself (somewhat)with many heartfelt words about the dangers of partisanship married with far right religion. Since he has been out of office, he is a bit of a wild card - no idea how he would actually vote on issues were he still part of the Senate. This is germane given that the discussion began with Lugar, and Lugar's record of criticisng bushco but than universally voting with them calls him into question as a good pick (as he seems beholden and likely to play puppet to what Bushcronies want.)

How many people here believe Clinton deserved his impeachment or that it was a political power play? While Nixon's Judiciary committee Impeachment vote is a standard on how this process is done. The difference is having bipartisan support. Several Repugnicans crossed over in '74 that gave the articles against Nixon a lot of credibility. Several regunicans jumped over to support Clinton in '99 and it gave his acquital the legitimacy it deserved. In both case, it was when members of the opposition come across that change and impeachment will happen.

Pelosi's line has long run its shelf-life...as there weren't even polls being conducted on the impeachment issue and we had far less crimes to investigate than we do now (Attorney scandal anyone???). I doubt in January she would have had a majority of House Democrats supporting this...now the worm has turned. But the ball isn't in Pelosi's court.

Yes..she has to tread lightly as the corporate media will gladly point to how this is a "power play" by "obstructionist" Democrats to overturn 2 elections. The real movement for impeachment must come from the Judiciary Committee and other corners of the House who can not only write the articles but also put the evidence and legal teeth into moving things forward. It's to build a case that compells Repugnicans to vote in favor or else been seen as compliant criminals themselves. Unfortunately, the goods aren't there yet. But I expect one day they will be.

Right now the game is to stop this regime from doing further destruction and force it into some accountability. Thus we need the Judiciary to focus on Inherent Contempt citations...forcing this regime to either comply or face even greater charges. Time is the avenger. Justice must previal...and not in a political forum, but based on real crimes that then can be prosecuted and these criminals really made to pay. That's the ultimate message we send that will be remembered as one of this nation's finest hours.

"Thus we need the Judiciary to focus on Inherent Contempt citations.."

This is important in my thinking too.

This would be the first time that I can remember anyone saying Lugar had principles who is a Dem. I remember Lugar from the 60's and he has never swayed far from the repug side of things. If you want another puppet then it might be a great plan but to me he is no better than Bush.

we need 2/3rds of the Senate on board, that means repubs. If DEMs proceed with a coup and place a DEM in the WH IMHO that would cripple the DEMs for a generation.

I can see your point that Pelosi has to hang back a bit...but I don't like her standing in the way.

I guess it was a different scenario in 1974 in that it was all about Nixon. In fact, Spiro Agnew resigned bringing in a new VP. Now we have a coin-toss over who is more impeachable, * or Cheney.

And yeah...not Lugar.

If not Lugar, then who ? Thats really one of my big points.... when do we start talking about replacements for Bush and/or Cheney. But no sitting pres or VP has been removed from office, removing either one is history in the making. Never before has our country employed this remedy. Never before was there this much reason to.

:rofl:

:yoiks:

Something MUST be done. But only some one who will NOT pardon bush or cheney. Although I will settle for ANYTHING that gets cheney GONE. He will destory this world if allowed to stay in power and that is my main concern.

Never before has this country used the remedy of removal from office. Just takin Cheney out will at the very least... set a standard of historical proportions. The lesson to future generations will be that never before has crimes been commited to warrant removal of a sitting VP.

Taking Cheney out is a shot across the bow that will be heard for 100's of years.

I need one more rec to make 5.

Giving a kick.

I.e., withdraw all troops from Iraq - except for Kurdistan.



more: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20470

Look. There are only eighteen months left before the next president takes office. There is little or nothing this administration can do legally in the time remaining. It's the extralegal crap that frightens me. And if they aren't stopped they are going to do everything they can outside of the law until the moment the next president is sworn in.

Lugar is reasonable on Iraq and is one of the few Republicans to challenge the neocons. He can position our country to start taking the steps necessary to extract us from the mess. With Democratic majorities in both chambers he won't be tempted to pull anything.

Man the candidates now are not well liked, I'd kind of hate to mess around with that? But, I do appreciate a post that plays the record through, we have too few that do. :hi:

Hes old, end of his carrer. there are other names of course.



ANd if you like the post please consider recommending it...

He DOES have the aspirations.

I should have mean more careful with my comments, thanks for your input.

However, I don't think it would be Lugar. I think it would more likely be McCain or Fred Thompson.

Kind of like this:

1. Cheney resigns for "health reasons."

2. Congress forces Bush to appoint McCain as VP.

3. Bush resigns.

4. McCain is sworn in as prez. He appoints Colin Powell as his VP. McCain-Powell are the caretakers until Jan. 09.

But #2... you dont force Bush to so squat, unless you have leverage. 67 votes in the senate. Which dont exist right now, but I can hope.

I actually saw it at KOS, by mistake I might ad.

What an apologists position. We live in a corprorate fascist state, the criminal regime is torturing and killing people around the world while it loots the peoples funds.

Now, what type of person sits on the sidelines?

You know the answer.

Just refer to this...



We don't even have to ask whose side she's on. The supporters of NAFTA side, that side.

...it just occurred to me...six months in the majority, 65% disapproval rating for *, and on Iraq, all we've got to show for it in terms of Congress is a 24 hour filibuster...on the wrong bill! (Webb's would end it). The American people sent a message, get the f*@k out of Iraq, just do it. Well, there will be a time when those elected in 2006 have to answer for their actions in that regard. They're not worried, they think we're all a bunch of suckers, stooges, fools who will take the latest explanation for inaction. They're wrong. Hope they wake up before its too late...for the country.

I think we should stick to principle on this and let the cards come down as they will.

After all, since the GOP burgled the Presidency in 2000 and 2004, why should we curry them about losing the Presidency? Pelosi can stand down for the office of Speaker and let the Democratic caucus choose a different speaker. Then there is no conflict of interest on her part.

If we screw with the intended apparatus of Impeachment at thhis stage of the game, as Bush tries to set up his fiefdom, we will set a precedent to fudge and "play it by ear" the next time an emergency arises.

I feel it is better to let this drama play itself out with the intent of the Founding Fathers playing the role of rule maker. If we monkey with the works now, I think, we will show that we have no real faith in the Constitutional system we are battling to save.

Not only that, but Dubya would interpret the offer to let him nominate Lugar as inherent weakness (I know, it sounds like I'm Bush talking about Al-Qaeda) and he would use that to try a coup.

Let's trust to the plan given us 218 years ago. The Constitutional solution.

PS. But here is an A- for your original thought and ingenuity

Though the level of these high crimes do deserve a first ever removal of at least Cheney... no ? And dont forget Carl Albert was Speaker in 1974, and he did not rise to the White House. But there is little time left, my guess is that by the end of '07, if it hasn't happened it won't.

And when his neck has its metaphorical necktie around it, I think they should continue cleaning house. Going both upstairs and downstairs with the necktie party. IMHO, no one should escape.

That has seemed very unlikely except for one thing we could not have counted on. And that is the incredible hubris of George the Mad. It is if he is bound and determined to drive this thing to its bitter end!

It would been incredibly easy for him to have avoided this, given the timidness of the Democrats. But even an entire nation, willing to cut him and his coconspirators an unconscionable amount of slack for what they deem the "good of the nation", cannot prevent that one demented man from driving this whole careening nation into the oncoming pile-up if he has his mind set up on that.

And, in my opinion, he does. The natural course for a totally self-absorbed sociopathic, egomaniac to take, I suppose.

I had coffee with my own representative Saturday morning and, though I was there primarily to inform him of the upcoming HCPB Initiative in Missouri, I also brought him a letter regarding impeachment. He took it quite seriously, and had no objection that I had made it "An Open Letter to My Congressman" with plans to submit it for publication. The short bit of conversation we had about Impeachment leads me to believe he will join with Kucinich in sponsoring HR 333.

I just got a call from the editor that said they are going to publish the letter as an OpEd on Wednesday (if not tomorrow), so I will go post it somewhere.

if it helped the impeachment process -- which it undoubtedly would.

Hopefully it would involve a Republican who had no intention of running in 2008.

But I still don't think that Pelosi was right for taking this off the table. She could have thought up a scenario like you suggested. And anyhow, although you're absolutely correct that it wouldn't seem right if she led the effort, she didn't have to go to the extreme of taking it off the table. She could have recused herself from the process, for the very reason you mention.

A back room deal with Republican Congressional leadership:

1) "R's" say they will vote to impeach and remove Bush & Cheney, if...
2) Nancy steps down as Speaker, a respected "R" such as Lugar is made Speaker. House rules say this can be done.....
3) Bush and Cheney are impeached in the House, then convicted/removed in the Senate.
4) Lugar is sworn in as President.
5) Nancy moves back to the Speaker position.

The frame bears some public discussion, "who will be the placeholder President". Its as if we are saying removal may happen, and thusly discussion of a placeholder is eventually germain.