If that thought isn’t depressing enough:
“Every country has the government it deserves.” - Joseph de Maistre
Here’s another way of answering the OP: The USA is not a parliamentary democracy. It is a constitutional monarchy. The president is not a prime minister. He is a limited-term monarch. Impeachment is thus less like a vote of no confidence than you might expect, & more like the Glorious Revolution: rare, & a pain in the butt.
[QUOTE=bup]
As an American, I’m sorry. We are currently an embarrassment on the world stage. We are embarrassing future Americans as well, and this administration will always be a blight on our history.
[/QUOTE]
I wouldn’t stop there. The present Congress is just horrible. We should have seen the signs when the USA PATRIOT ACT (I’m not shouting, there are caps in the official name) was passed unread. :eek: But we didn’t throw the lot of them out, & they just keep getting worse. A blight on our history indeed.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Clinton’s impeachment was about getting Bill Clinton…by any means necessary. Don’t kid yourself that it was anything else.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, it was about something more fundamental than that; tarnishing the public perception of the whole Democratic Party. Politics in this country is more about the War Eternal for party supremacy than about statesmanship.
[QUOTE=rjung]
Because Republicans hate America.
There is nothing to stop the Republican politicians on Capitol Hill from collectively growing a conscience, declare that enough is enough, and nail Bush and Cheney’s ass on whatever charges they can scrape together (insert obligatory “It worked on Clinton” bit here).
The fact that they don’t – and often offer protection for the Administrations’ illegal doings – is all the evidence we need that today’s GOP leaders value the party more than the nation, which makes them no different from traitors in that regard.
[/QUOTE]
My mom’s a Republican, my granddaddy’s been a conservative since FDR, I was GOP for years. I hated Bill Clinton & suspected Janet Reno of being a Castoist. My political education largely came from Wm. F. Buckley’s National Review.
And I totally agree with rjung’s statement here.
[QUOTE=foolsguinea]
… & suspected Janet Reno of being a Castoist.
[/QUOTE]
Castroist. :smack:
[QUOTE=Clothahump]
Lance? Hell, we need a bazooka.
[/QUOTE]
What you really need is a leg to stand on. Good luck with that.
Here’s the sad truth:
I thought Bush was clearly deserving of impeachment in 2004. He had declared Guantanamo Bay, which is absolutely, totally, undeniably US-administered territory, to be beyond the authority of US courts, & under his absolute & sole dictatorial control. Even if he had been blessed by a dove from heaven, his footsteps sprouted roses, & he was the last best hope to save Earth from annihilation by aliens from Stavromula Beta, that would have been sufficient cause to remove him from office. Not to mention all the poor schlubs who were being held incommunicado there.
But we were in the middle of an election season. Those of us who wanted him gone settled for voting him out, & didn’t push for impeachment during the election. And… somehow, he won. With, apparently, more margin than in 2000.
And then it was harder to impeach him. He had been “vindicated.” He had been approved by the people.
And the truth is, the Congress & the courts in this country tend to follow the perceived popular will. They, more than most, respect the results of votes; that’s how they got where they are. So, they decided we’re stuck with him.
But we’ll see.
Heh. That can be arranged.
[QUOTE=foolsguinea]
But we were in the middle of an election season. Those of us who wanted him gone settled for voting him out, & didn’t push for impeachment during the election. And… somehow, he won. With, apparently, more margin than in 2000.
And then it was harder to impeach him. He had been “vindicated.” He had been approved by the people.
And the truth is, the Congress & the courts in this country tend to follow the perceived popular will. They, more than most, respect the results of votes; that’s how they got where they are. So, they decided we’re stuck with him.
[/QUOTE]
I’ll ignore the part about the courts since they have absolutely nothing to do with the impeachment process. However, I can’t help but note the irony in your post about Congress. How dare they consider the will of the people!! What do they think this is, a representative democracy or something?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
[…] What do they think this is, a representative democracy or something?
[/QUOTE]
No, at this point I’d call it more of a syndicalist oligarchy.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Can we PLEASE ad a collorary to Godwin that states you automatically lose an argument if you counter a Bush discussion by bringing up Bill Clinton?
[/QUOTE]
If you start talking about Godwin’s Law in a thread, then does someone actually need to make a comparison to Nazis? It seems to me that just bringing it up often derails the thread.
[QUOTE=Enfant Terrible]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Such an action would destroy the Democratic party. Or any party that tried it. Really and truly. Regardless of what you think of the current administration, any political party that gained a majority in congress and used that to impeach and then remove from office the President and Vice President. members of the opposition party, in order to get one of their own elevated to President from Speaker of the House would be met by such a monumental roar of protest from the voters of this country over their blatent abuse of the system that they would be finished as a viable political party. They would likely have trouble getting one of their candidates elected dogcatcher. Look at how loudly the partisan Left STILL screams and yells over the election of 2000, and that’s nothing more substantial than being sore losers. Multiply that outrage times 100 and spread it across the entire political spectrum (except for the most rabid portion of the impeaching party’s base) and that’s what the hue and cry would be like.
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Such an action would destroy the Democratic party. Or any party that tried it. Really and truly. Regardless of what you think of the current administration, any political party that gained a majority in congress and used that to impeach and then remove from office the President and Vice President. members of the opposition party, in order to get one of their own elevated to President from Speaker of the House would be met by such a monumental roar of protest from the voters of this country over their blatent abuse of the system that they would be finished as a viable political party. They would likely have trouble getting one of their candidates elected dogcatcher.
[/quote]
True . . . I mean, we haven’t heard much out of the Pubs since the Johnson impeachment, have we?
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Look at how loudly the partisan Left STILL screams and yells over the election of 2000, and that’s nothing more substantial than being sore losers.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
BTW: Relatively few of Al Gore’s supporters in 2000 were from the left. Most leftists were backing Nader that year.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
True . . . I mean, we haven’t heard much out of the Pubs since the Johnson impeachment, have we?
[/QUOTE]
First of all, Johnson was a Republican himself. They impeached the sitting president, a president of their own party. What Dave is talking about is the hypothetical situation of the Democrats impeaching both the President and Vice-President of the opposition party in order to put one of their own in the Big Chair. He and I don’t agree on a lot politically (though probably more than either of us think at first glance), but on this I’m 100% behind his prediction. An obvious power-grab of that magnitude would destroy the Democratic party. The only conceivable condition I can think of under which it wouldn’t would be if there were indisputable proof that both Bush and Cheney were undercover members of an extraterrestrial species who have been secretly funneling children from the foster care system to their planet’s larders for the last five years.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
BTW: Relatively few of Al Gore’s supporters in 2000 were from the left. Most leftists were backing Nader that year.
[/QUOTE]
Nader got 2.7% of the popular vote. A definition of “the left” that only includes about 3% of the population is not very meaningful. If we assume the same is true of “the right”, then 94% of americans are centrists. Absurd.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
True . . . I mean, we haven’t heard much out of the Pubs since the Johnson impeachment, have we?
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t say anything about impeachment. I said that any party that won a majority in the House and Senate (and it would have to be a large majority indeed in the Senate-2/3) in mid-term elections and proceded to impeach, try and remove a President from the other party, followed by doing the same to the Vice President, elevating the SOH from their party to the Presidency would face such a backlash for so perverting the democratic process beyond recognition that they would effectively destroy themselves as a viable party.
[QUOTE=jayjay]
First of all, Johnson was a Republican himself. They impeached the sitting president, a president of their own party. What Dave is talking about is the hypothetical situation of the Democrats impeaching both the President and Vice-President of the opposition party in order to put one of their own in the Big Chair. He and I don’t agree on a lot politically (though probably more than either of us think at first glance), but on this I’m 100% behind his prediction. An obvious power-grab of that magnitude would destroy the Democratic party. The only conceivable condition I can think of under which it wouldn’t would be if there were indisputable proof that both Bush and Cheney were undercover members of an extraterrestrial species who have been secretly funneling children from the foster care system to their planet’s larders for the last five years.
[/QUOTE]
Hmm, where’d I put my “Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos” bumpersticker?
I agree that this would be such a blatant power grab that the fallout would be immense. It would also tell me that the Democrats were so weak that this was the only way they thought they might have a chance to win in 2008.
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
What you really need is a leg to stand on. Good luck with that.
[/QUOTE]
So then, what did Clinton get charged with? A simple answer here, not a history of his administration - what was the crime he was charged with?
[QUOTE=Basandre]
So then, what did Clinton get charged with? A simple answer here, not a history of his administration - what was the crime he was charged with?
[/QUOTE]
CNN article with links to full text of articles of impeachment
Also, he was later “cited” (not “charged”) for civil contempt of court in relation to the Paula Jones case, which is what led to the suspension of his Arkansas law license.
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Regardless of what you think of the current administration, any political party that gained a majority in congress and used that to impeach and then remove from office the President and Vice President. members of the opposition party, in order to get one of their own elevated to President from Speaker of the House would be met by such a monumental roar of protest from the voters of this country over their blatent abuse of the system that they would be finished as a viable political party.
[/quote]
Yet it didn’t seem to deter the Republicans from the Clinton-Lewinsky witchhunt a decade ago, did it? Or do you seriously believe that, after ousting Clinton from office, the Gingrich Republican-controlled Congress would have been satisfied with leaving President Gore in charge until 2000?
C’mon, rjung! What would they charge him with? “You are charged with being the Vice President under a President we decided we didn’t like enough to not kick out of office?”