I agree with Polycarp and Sarahfeena. The impeachment of Bill Clinton (and Andrew Johnson for that matter) was a perfect example of the misuse of the Constitution for political ends. Impeachment is not the equivalent of a no-confidence vote and shouldn’t be used as such.
As has been eloquently pointed out in this thread already, Bush is safe as long as Republicans hold even one house of Congress, let alone both.
However, I do not believe that Democrats would balk at impeaching and convicting Bush should the November mid-term elections hand over control of the House and Senate to the Democrats. In fact, I believe that (Russ Feingold excepted) the major reason that there has been barely a peep about the Big I is because of political advantage. (I do not believe that the potential of Cheney’s succession is what is staying the Democrats’ hands, as one could easily imagine a concurrent conviction of Bush and Cheney).
Remember the Presidential succession rules… President, VP, Speaker of the House .
Imagine the kerfluffle if not only the Congress but the White House itself were to change hands in one fell swoop! And when I say kerfluffle, I’m talking the kerfluffiest:
-
Two impeachments in a row. 'Nuff said…
-
The new President would have the ability to run for re-election… twice.
-
Assuming that the Minority Leader accedes to the Speaker position, Nancy Pelosi would become the first female president in U.S. History.
To say nothing of the fun :smack: on the major news networks when going over all of the above.
Despite the utter control of all branches of government, I believe the GOP to be in zugzwang.
You do not want to be tied to this administration if you’re a congressperson or senator looking to re-up for two or six more years, respectively.
On the other hand, it would not be wise to oppose the White House too openly, either, especially in light of the scenario above.
It might be more to the Republicans’ advantage to initiate impeachment procedures themselves!
That is, before November.
Naturally, this will all be a moot point when the American public does what it always does: re-elects the incumbents. But it’s fun to play ‘What If’, in any case.
Well, most of the major news networks, anyway. CBS would continue to broadast football, just like they did last time.
And Fox News would continue to give us non-updates on Natalee Holloway’s disappearance.
(Republicans initiate impeachment procedures? It is to laugh…)
Quite so.
It’d be suicidal–or THE MOST BRILLIANT POLITICAL MOVE this side of Machiavelli.
Never happen, though.
Well, for one thing because about 1 in 2 of, ahem, "us" Americans voted for him. And second because the idea of impeaching a president for essentially protecting the country during a time of war doesn’t really seem very sound there hoser… 
Oh ? And how has he “protected” us ? The reality is quite the opposite; if he was an agent of Bin Laden, he wouldn’t have done much differently. Bush and his collegues/puppetmasters are the enemy of America, as well as the rest of humanity.
By invading and conquering a rogue Arab state, by showing the world that the so-called ‘arab-street’ has absolutely no influence in the modern world, by detaining and aggressively interrogating terrorist prisoners at Gitmo where the anti-American UN can’t help them, by tapping the phones of suspected terrorists & their families here in the US, and by preventing any further attacks on US soil in the last 5 years.
You know, all the stuff us evil, puppy-kicking republicans get accomplished that drives those of you wracked with liberal guilt nuts.
Which had nothing to do with any terrorist attacks against the US and which had no ability to damage or harm the US at the time…
Especially if you refuse to admit the existence of any opinion that doesn’t agree with yours, as this administration tends to do…
Nice euphemism there.
Alleged terrorist prisoners. We don’t know that they’re terrorists and actually have good reason to believe that a significant number of them were just poor schlubs whose personal enemies happened to be in good with the US troops over there.
Ah…the good old American values of isolation and “disappearment”.
Illegally, with a net that I haven’t seen any signs of having a limit as new information keeps pouring in about it.
Y’know, I heard there was a magic stone in Kansas City, Missouri, that has the power to keep tigers away. It must work…there haven’t been any wild tigers in Kansas City in YEARS!
“Liberal guilt” = having a conscience, apparently…
So if someone can dupe the american people into voting for him he can get away with raping them in their shit for four years with no fear of retribution?
“and by preventing any further attacks on US soil in the last 5 years”
actually it was me praying to Thor that has prevented any further attacks
Huh. I thought the goal was to liberate and democratize it, not conquer it. Guess I heard wrong. Looks like we’ll be there as long as it takes for them to acknowledge us as their masters, won’t it?
How’s that workin’ out for ya?
What makes you think they’re terrorists? Or that torture works? Or that the law is actually an *impediment * to freedom rather than a guarantor of it? When the fuck did *that * attitude become part of the definition of patriotism rather than its reverse?
Suspected by whom? And how do you know?
Hmm, why didn’t you say “the last 6 years”?
You should remember, however, that removal of the President and/or VP from office requires a 2/3 majority to convict in the Senate. Since it is realistically, if not mathematically, impossible for the Democrats to have a 2/3 majority in the Senate after the next election, it seems very unlikely that this would happen. It would take something serious enough for many Republicans to also be willing to vote to convict.
Finally, to Hail Ants, I admire your satirical post parodying dittohead Bush supporters. It was quite amusing.
rjung, I’m sure you mean well, but I believe you are falling for a bit of Republican/conservative spin doctoring here. The invitation to bring the debate to a “higher level” is hypocritical at best, but mostly just self-serving. Republicans and conservatives would VERY much like it if we kept discussion of the Blowjob Impeachment on a “high” level of perjury and such, because if they could keep it that way long enough, they hope people would eventually forget what it was really about, which is to say blowjobs and human humidors and spunk stains on blue dresses, saved as mementos. They would LOVE it if we forgot that it was the Republicans and conservatives and their media machine that labored so mightily to make these topics a matter of household debate in the 90s.
The Republicans/conservatives would very much like to keep things on a “high” plane so we’d forget they were scum who’d do fucking ANYTHING to unseat a Democratic President. So of course they invite you and anyone else to keep the discussion of the Blowjob Impeachment on a high level. They would REALLY like it if you forgot who you were dealing with. You would be ill advised to do so, of course.
You should also remember that “convict” is an inappropriate term, not mentioned in the Constitution. All that happens is removal from office and, at the Senate’s option, disqualification from holding future office. The appropriation of vocabulary from the legal system helped the get-Clinton-for-something campaign portray impeachment as somehow being a special kind of trial for defendants who happen to be officeholders, rather than the purely-political process, entirely separate from the legal system, the Constitution defines it to be. Evil Captor, that meshes with your observation about the Republicans’ attempts to portray their impeachment of Clinton as being more moral and principled than just an act of personal vengeance. Certainly there are many even today who still believe that, but it was never even a plurality opinion outside the Beltway.
Only if you also accept the Republicans’ legacy of using impeachment as an act of pure partisan vengeance. The Nixon and (to a lesser extent) A. Johnson impeachment processes were not acts of partisanship but of statesmanship, *also * as intended. There is little doubt that Nixon would have been removed by a mostly-nonpartisan vote in the Senate, which at the time still was dominated by a generation of politicians who put country before party.
I agree as well re: Clinton. That abuse so infuriated me that I re-registered as a Democrat. It was, IMO, a clearly partisan abuse of power, and we Americans deserved better.
I dunno, that bit was a bit overdone. Strains credulity, you know? I mean, we’ve got to believe the dude is at least smart/stable enough to operate a computer.
As noted in one of the articles to which magellan01 linked earlier in the thread, Judge Webber, overseeing the Paula Jones case, ruled that a private lawsuit over an incident that occurred several years prior to the election to the presidency was not going to interfere with Mr. Clinton’s ability to carry out his position as president, and so decided that the case could continue without waiting until Mr. Clinton had completed his term.
It was a judicial first (as far as I know), but I am unaware of how many sitting presidents have been sued for private matters.
It all boils down to stupidity and selfishness in the end. There is too much of both for the good people to overcome.
Lance? Hell, we need a bazooka.
I would have said so too - until GW was re-elected.