Is having a lame duck Presidency until January 20th, 2009 a better alternative?
Well, that was a silly thing for him to say, but he did afterall say goal, as in “something yet to be accomplished”. Did he say “I have now completed everything necessary to prevent all terrorist attacks throuhgout the world”? No, I didn’t think so.
For the good of the country as a whole? IMHO yes, it is. Even THIS lame duck president.
-XT
I honestly don’t understand how stubbornly “staying the course” is better for the country. Why would Dennis Hastert as President damage the country? How does transitioning from one President to another damage the economy? How does admitting to error damage our foreign policy? It would likely increase their respect for us (arrogant) americans to show a bit of humbleness and admit we screwed the pooch.
Why would Dennis Hastert as President damage the country? Because he’d be less than Ford, with no real power and no way to get anything done at all…completely paralized for the next 3 years. Woohoo, sounds great.
How does transitioning from one President to another damage the economy? Because the economy is partly or even mostly built on a house of cards called ‘confidence’…and a big part of that is confidence in the government. How much confidence do you expect such a blow to give the US domestically overall. With less than a lame duck president and all the hoohaw and scandal that would accompany Bush tucking tail and taking Chaney with him? What would happen to the Supreme Court nominations (gots to put TWO people in AND elect a CJ, right)? The war in Iraq? We’d be like a deer in the headlights if this fantasy actually happened.
How does admitting to error damage our foreign policy? I can’t even begin to think of all the ways we’d be damaged by having Bush and Chaney go out early in disgrace. Oh, I’m sure the crowing would be loud and long with the ‘We told you so!’ folks throughout the world…and that from our allies. But its the reaction of the folks with the symtex underwear that I’m more worried about…and those nations who are unfriendly to the US full time, instead of just part time. And what this would do to the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan while we tear ourselves apart internally trying to put back together a ‘working’ government.
-XT
“Don’t change horses in midstream” is obviously an article of faith with some people. Personally I think Presidents should be held accountable even if it does mean some temporary setbacks. It sets a precedent that will warn future Presidents that they can’t simply get away with anything because it’s their second term and aren’t up for re-election.
Alright… have Congress call a special election. Put the winner of the special election in the line of succession and Hastert will simply be a temporary custodian of the office keeping the seat in the Oval Office warm for a couple months.
“Unless we turn around right now, we just might get where we’re going.”
- apocryphal Indian proverb
xtisme, your argument comes down to simply “Things could be worse”, but without any substance to back that up. Could Hastert be even less engaged in the job than Bush? Could investors have even less confidence in our economy? Could other nations have even less regard for what’s left of our claim to moral leadership?
Here’s a hint for you: *Every * second-term President is a lame duck, starting on Election Night. A replacement who is eligible to run in 2008 would *not * be one.
The problem here is its more flights of fancy. We have a clear succession…so, if your fantasy came to pass and if Hastert is still about, he’s it for the duration.
Well, no. It comes down first in proving in a non-partisan way that Bush is unfit to continue as president. Because he’s not going to resign in this reality unless he is pressured to resign with something more real than has been presented thus far.
As to substance to back up whether things would be worse or not, well, I haven’t got a magic time machine…but then, neither do you. I’ve given why I think things will be worse with Bush going on in some huge scandal and taking Chaney with him. You…haven’t.
In the spirit of this marvolous advice, here’s a hint for you Elvis: Ever second term president is a lame duck, but not ever president goes out of their second term in a cloud of scandal. I know, I know…blinding obvious. As I said, it was given in the same spirit as your hint. 
-XT
When the airplane is heading for the ground and the engines are on fire, removing the chimpanzee behind the yolk is something you should do right now.
For what it’s worth, FEMA director Brown is out.
And anyone who hasn’t yet read the Newsweek article absolutely needs to. The fact that Bush surrounds himself with a cadre of bootlicking yesmen and tolerates no dissent — in other words, the very basis of his administrative style — is right at the heart of this appalling clusterfuck. This is not simply a disaster that as a single event was so massive it overwhelmed an otherwise prepared organization; this is a disaster that exposed the administration for the deeply dysfunctional political circlejerk its leader has made it.
Wow. Just… wow.
Has he completed anything that might even remotely deter a terrorist attack anywhere in the world in the 14 months since that speech (and 40+ since we declared this war on terror)?
Wow. I missed that the first time around. I tip my hat to you, sir.
Not a good example. Ford issued a pre-emptive pardon so he couldn’t have been prosecuted even if anyone wanted to. But I have no doubt we’d be discussing impeachment hearings in progress right now if the Dems controlled Congress.
Why is it necessary to make up charges? If the Dems had been voted back in power in Congress (as I said above) in '04, I have no doubt that impeachment would be a real option. In fact, there’s an election coming up in '06. If enough Americans want to oust Bush, then the Dems should be able take over both houses. Wann bet that this will happen?
Or, your argument simply isn’t persuasive. Just because you feel passionately about something doesn’t mean someone else is mindless because they disagree with you.
The Constitution says that pardons don’t apply in cases of impeachment. Sure, he resigned, but couldn’t they have impeached him anyway? The Constitution says that the penalty for impeachment shall extend no further than removal from office and inability to hold office in the future. Couldn’t they have invoked the latter clause, impeached his resigned ass, thus nullifying the pardon?
The President has no constitutional power to remove a City Mayor or a State Governor.
At least we got through to somebody.
No.
After he resigned, he was neither The President, Vice President nor a civil officer.
As I feared. All you have to do is resign and have your vice president pardon you. There’s a loophole that needs fixing.
Which mayor or governor has given the country record deficits, got the nation in a needless war with false pretenses, stretched our Armed Forces nearly to the breaking point, and twiddled his thumbs while the WTC fell and New Orleans got flooded?