So, I enjoy reading all the politcal wisdom offered here by all you well-informed Dopers, although I rarely stick my neck out and post here myself. I’m curious what you all think of the chances that the following scenario could bring us the first female POTUS. Snowball in hell? Longshot? 50-50?
Suppose the Democarats manage not to shoot themselves in both feet this November and win control of one or both houses of congress. Nancy Pelosi becomes Speaker of the House. Under Democratic leadership, real congressional investigations finally happen into the numerous misdeeds of the Bush administration – all the stuff they’ve covered up so well finally sees the light of day. So many smoking guns are found that even many Republicans can no longer defend the crooks-in-chief.
Bush and Cheney are **both **impeached --and the presidency goes to the Speaker of the House.
Could it happen? Would it happen, or would other politcal forces intervene and steer the course of history some other direction?
Could both be impeached close enough together to prevent a new VP from being named and approved first?
Can Bush actually be impeached? He probably has an excellent baffle system in place to protect himself.
Never happen. By the time they could do all the in depth investigations you’re talking about to get material to do impeachment trials (which would have to happen one after the other, not concurrently), it’d be time to elect a new president. More’s the pity.
On a slightly personal note, Mr. Moto, I’m glad you decided to stick around.
It’s more likely Cheney goes down first, as a result of Plamegate. Not certain, possibly not even probable, but if someone’s going down, Cheney is first.
The longest shot you can imagine. Even if the Dems took both houses, there just wouldn’t be time. The impeachment procedings would be going on during the presidential campaign-- what a mess! It’ll never happen.
Makes sense to me that if it happened, Cheney would go first. Given how polarized congress is these days, is there anybody at all who would fit the Jerry Ford mold well enough to get confirmed as a replacement VP?
And it does seem that the time limit would be critical – I suppose the Dems would rather have the Specter of Bush to run against in 2008 than a Jerry Ford clone, if one was found.
Maybe if Cheney died in office (not exactly beyond the realm of possibility) shortly after Bush was impeached, and before a new VP could be appointed. Still a long shot, but not as unlikely as a double impeachement IMHO.
Huh. When I saw the thread title, I thought it might be about the Democrats regaining the House this year, then things going sufficiently well that DNC2008 would draft her in a run for PotUS: “Help us, Speaker Pelosi, you’re our only hope!”
[Personal anecdote: when I moved from Washington DC to San Francisco, I was rather keen on getting involved in the local political scene up close (I found the DC scene to be an extremely closed to “outsiders”). One Saturday during Congresswoman Pelosi’s re-election cycle, I went to meetings in four parts of SF: Pacific Heights (very wealthy, but leaning Democrat), the Mission (Hispanic, mostly Dem), West of Twin Peaks (wealthy, the most right-leaning part of SF, several heckling Republicans in the audience), and Bayshore / Hunter’s Point (African-American, poor, mostly Dem). I was very impressed that at no time did she “pander to the crowd”, i.e. her answers to the questions posed were consistent no matter which of the four locations she was at. I signed up with her staffers at the last meeting (a couple of them recognized me at that point anyway, especially since I was one of the few Caucasians at the last venue), and worked on her re-election campaign a couple of times. {I’m not claiming that getting Nancy Pelosi re-elected in SF is particularly hard: she was the anointed heiress of the local Democratic “Burton Machine”}. She’s extremely likeable in person, and very smart.]
Does Nancy Pelosi have what it takes to run for PotUS? I don’t think that it’s something to which she would want to subject her family. I’d be interested to see what a cabal of Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and Barbara Lee would do if given Executive power: I’d support that even over a Hillary Clinton run. Not holding my breath that it’s going to happen, though.
I’ve often thought that in a Parliamentary system such as exists in the UK, Nancy Pelosi would make a great Prime Minister.
Nothing particular that I know of, BrainGlutton. Her husband Paul has been a fairly successful investor, but nothing shady AFAIK. She comes from a political family – her father represented Maryland in the House and was later Mayor of Baltimore – so has known from childhood how to act in the public eye (not that such a background is an inevitable safeguard against indiscretion, as other political scions have shown over the years!). I just think that the fishbowl-like scrutiny is something that would make a lot of good potential candidates balk at running for PotUS.
It may also be that she can serve her party better in her House leadership role than in a Presidential run. Things might be different if she were male – or younger (she’s 66 now, so would be nearly 69 if she took the Presidential Oath in 2009, i.e almost as old as Reagan was).
The San Francisco Chronicle did a three-part series on her a couple of weeks ago: here is Part 1. She’s a phenomenal fundraiser and deal-broker, and appears to be well-liked on the Hill even by her ideological opposites. I think part of her success is that she works very hard behind the scenes rather than having a flashy on-camera persona. This is great for what she does, but would work against her in terms of name recognition for a Presidential run. The opposite side of that equation would be Hillary Clinton, who has great name-recognition numbers but is apparently the most hated woman in America. :dubious:
There’s no guarantee that the Dems would elect her Speaker in the event they wrest control of the House. Even if they did, they would be far better off dragging the proceedings through the 2008 campaign than by impeaching both ends of the axis of evil. And if it looked likely to happen, then one or the other would fall on his sword to let the other nominate a replacement. In theory, it could happen. Just like Bush could become a Shakespearean actor after leaving office.
Nancy Pelosi is the poster child of what the Democrats need to avoid in a national election. She’s the House Representative for San Francisco, for crying out loud. Is there any big city in the country that is more liberal??? If you think “Northeast Liberal” is a losing proposition (which it is), what do you think “San Francisco Liberal” will do for that party?
John, you LIVE here, fercryinoutloud. You know better than most that that characterization is a tired cliche. When national elections roll around, both parties come to San Francisco. Why? For the money, of course. And the Republicans in the area are just as numerous, and the pockets are just as deep if not deeper. What we need is for people like you to stop perpetrating that cliche. There are as many politically savvy, non frothing Dems from the Bay Area as there are from Massachusetts.
What the hell are you talking about? Are you saying that Pelosi is the kind of centrist Democrat who could be elected President? Are you saying that the electorate in SF is a good barometer of the nation as a whole?
Gee, you’d never know that by looking at actual statistics. SF County (roughly the same as Pelosi’s Congressional district) went 83% for Kerry in 2004. How do you conclude that Republicans are just as numerous in SF? Hell, I’ll even let you use the entire SF Bay Area.
I never said anything about “frothing Dems”. That’s your strawman. I said liberal, as in well left of center. And while both the Bay Area and MA tend to be more liberal than most of the country, I can D-dog double guarantee you that SF (which is what we’re talking about) will win the liberal contest when pitted against the state of MA any day of the week.
So? We tried playing to the center in 2004. (If you think Kerry is a “liberal,” please point out where any of his stated positions on campaign issues placed him even ten degrees to the left of Bush.) Maybe we need to try something different.
