01/31/2007 12:45:48 PM EST

Thinking Impeachment through

posted by ProfRich

Now that pretty much the entire country would like to see President Bush impeached, lets follow through the impact of this.

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook

First, I am assuming since a significant majority of the country wants Bush impeached they also want him removed.

If he is removed what happens next?

I think we have to look at three scenarios.

(1) Bush, and only Bush, is removed.  This is the dreaded President Cheney scenario.  Does Cheney then decide, now that he is President, he should run for "reelection"?&nbs p; He is pretty fond of power after all?  Of course, he has never indicated any desire to run, but once he really gets the taste in his mouth can he spit it out so easily?

Of course, the real issue with Cheney running is he can't win.  I mean people hate the guy and have for years.  Unless the Dems nominate Charles Manson, he would be wasting everyone's time.  Then again, Cheney has displayed a superhuman ability to delude himself into believeing things that are undeniably not true so.....

(2) More likely than the above scenario is that both Bush and Cheney get taken down together.  This creates a scenario I like to call President Pelosi.  Like that Repubs?  As much as we can talk about that, I just want to look at what that means in 2008. 

If the Dems had the White House with President Pelosi, would she step aside for President Clinton (II) or President Edwards? Or does she then enter into the 2008 Presidential race as the incumbent? Do the other frontrunners defer?  Does she choose the most powerful one as VP to head the issue off at the pass?  Pelosi/Clinton? 

I don't know but two things are sure: it would be absolutely fascinating and Pelosi doesn't turn me on or anything but if I had to choose between seeing her face on the presidential posters in my classroom for the next few decades and Cheney's that is no choice at all. 

(3) The most likely scenario (if Bush is removed, which is unlikely to begin with) is Bush and Cheney are both going down and the Dick bites the bullet and resigns allowing George to pick the next president (albeit a fleeting one).

Then who does George pick?  Imagine what he is gifting to some lucky neocon? Not only the White House but all the powers, dignitas, credibilty and resources of the incumbent position in the 2008 presidential election.  Now this is a fairly paltry gift when put next to what he has done for Oil CEO's but for a simple groveling politico, what could be better? 

Does he follow the example of the only other son to be elected president (JQA) and arrange a second "corrupt bargain."  Negotiating what he wants in exchange for the White House (actually JQA did the opposite in the corrupt bargain).

Does he turn to his newfound political bitch and stretch out one of those power-grasping arms, take McCain so gently yet frimly in hand and give the greatest political reach-around in American political history?

I know he won't be looking at Romney since Mit is a Godless heathen and all.  Rudy doesn't seem to fit the bill. Hagel hates him and Bush isn't real big on respecting dissenting opinions.  Is it Condi? and a run in 08 for everyone's favorite Sovietologist?

Like Nixon, Bush would find himself in the role of Kingmaker.  He seems to have almost unlimited respect for the work of Nauri Al-Malaki.  Maybe he deserves a promotion to Prez of US?

Interesting stuff to ponder. 

< Obama freezes out Faux News | Men in Blackface >
 Display:
Thinking Impeachment through | 6 comments (6 topical, 0 hidden)
Could be worse (none / 0)
For all those Republicans who threw up in thier mouths a little bit when they read the words President Pelosi, if she turned down the gig we would have President Robert Byrd.

by ProfRich on 01/31/2007 12:47:05 PM EST

I love this (none / 0)

The Cons have spent the last 15 years turning EVERYTHING into a subjective ruling, including the roles of the three branches of the US government and the meaning of the Constitution, not to mention the entire rule of law.  And yet when an argument is made that Bush and Cheney should be impeached, they come out with some sort of categorical statement like . . .

 "neither the valid evidence necessary to indict and convict President Bush for any "high crimes and misdemeanors",.. neither do they have the votes to remove him." 

(The second phrase should start with 'nor', by the way.) 

Congress has the evidence necessary to indict and convict for high crimes and misdemeanors if they SAY they do. You've all proven that our formerly rock solid government is, like any government, merely a collectively agreed-upon reality. And our collective agreement has been shattered by the Cons partisanship. It is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and the people are royally pissed at the arrogance, incompetence, and evil nature of Bush and Cheney. Personally, I think Bush should be impeached and removed to Federal prison just because of the signing statements he's made in the last bloody month.

As for the will of Congress to actually go for impeachment . . .you never know how these things can get rolling. I think Cheney is still very vulnerable thanks to the Libby trial. And if Cheney suddenly becomes impeachable from a political standpoint, there would be very little holding up this house of cards that is the King George, Jr. White House. 

by Tergenev on 01/31/2007 03:55:12 PM EST

didn't read my post in the other thread? (none / 0)
Hmmm?

by MedfordTim on 01/31/2007 07:58:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
President Pelosi sounds fine (none / 0)

I think that President Pelosi sounds about 4 MILLION times better than any of the Republican alternatives, and actually better than several of the Democratic ones as well. And if she were in, of course she would seek reelection. I'm firmly conficent that President Pelosi would become Harry Truman in office, not Gerald Ford.

Bush and Cheney should be impeached not because of the political expediency, or because of the better alternatives, but because they have betrayed and seriously weakened our Republic for their own craven and ignoble ends. It is simple justice.

by Tergenev on 01/31/2007 04:00:52 PM EST

This freaking hilarious (none / 0)
For a poster who froths at the mouth in anticipation (give us the quote please) any time a capital C ends up next to an L in a post to say this is is just too funny.
This guy has posted about three billion times how justifiable the Clinton impeachment was and what a travesty he wasn't removed and then he comes back with something like this.
You are joking, right? 
You are absolutely fixated on this Clinton quote where he kind of sorta implies he broke the law in a civil suit that was totally unrelated to his presidency but Bush admitting, even flaunting, he is breaking the law, ignoring the Supreme Court and subverting the will of the Congress is irrelevant.
You simply spew whatever nonsense fits your parties politics at the moment.  There is no though, no analysis, no integrity.
And that is why you are a clown.  And a laughing stock around here.

Oh wait, I forgot.  You are the one stuck in the 1996 time capsule.  To you Bush is just the vapid governor of Texas and former president's son!  Man, you have quite a story ahead of you, my friend.

by ProfRich on 01/31/2007 04:14:49 PM EST

High Crimes.... (none / 0)

As a matter of fact I do believe that Purjury and subourning purjury are more injurious to the office of the Presidency than are the wire-tapping allegations

Easy to answer, three words : Richard M. Nixon.

His defense is that he is protecting this country with all the powers and authority he can muster.

Interesting,again, Nixon claimed the same thing for the most part when he authorized several "bag jobs" and wiretaps under the guise of national security.

 you will fast discover the differences between "data mining" and "wire tapping". Bush (for all his good intent) may not know the technical and legal differences between the two. But the field operations agents sure do.

Funny,Nixon made simular claims for the  "plummers." Of course there was no data mining back then. However, the President alleges that he has the "right" to choose the  "means and methods of engaging the enemy" in this case its domestic surveillance. He also claims that this power is implied in authorization for the use of force.Such bull...the authorization does not, by any stretch of the imagination, rise to the magnitude of a declaration of war. In that regard let me point out  TITLE 50 of the US Code § 1811

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.

So explain to me why a President must get Congressional authorization after 15 days of electronic surveillance without a court order during a declared war but,  using Bushs logic, he can conduct electronic surveillance   with impunity indefinitely with only an authorization to use force?

by MRFred on 01/31/2007 10:42:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thinking Impeachment through | 6 comments (6 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: