John the Ratio is for NYC. It is extreme. As I posted above, the fact that NYC has gone with a Republican Mayor for 3 straight terms is amazing.
I admitted Boston was smaller. The Fact NYC is registered 87% Democrat would appear to be a much greater ratio than what you cited for SF. I don’t think there is an argument here, maybe you misread my posts because of my poor typing.
BTW the 2 Republican Mayors are pretty liberal by Republican standards. Rudy is in favor of Gay Rights as an example.
Yes, I know we’re basically saying the same thing, but I just want to be clear that 1) I never cited a number for registered Dems is SF, and 2) when I asked for a more heavily Democratic region of comparable size, I really was thinking both population and geography (although I did not make that clear).
Yep, and that makes all the sense in the world. BTW, you have to go back to the early 60s to find the last Republican mayor of SF. Oddly enough, it was solidly Republcan for the 50 years before that!
Well, that’s about the time when what what it meant to be “Republican” changed forever. Before then, you couldn’t really say, “Dems=liberal, Pubs=conservative.”
Can’t happen quite like that. The process has to look statesmanlike, done in the interests of the country, not partisan or vengeful. Even the Senate hearings on Watergate, as clear-cut a situation as that was, required an agreement that only Senators who did not aspire to be President take part.
The agreement in either house even to hold substantive hearings on Bush’s and Cheney’s misconduct, much less to begin impeachment, would have to involve at least similar pre-agreed ground rules, especially with the air of the partisan, vengeful Clinton impeachment hanging overhead. It has to involve members of both parties who not only look but are dedicated to the country’s interests above their party’s, and yes, they do exist in sufficient quantities.
That has to mean accepting that the country chose, however narrowly, a Republican presidency and generally Republican policies for the entire term, and the process will only have sufficient public acceptance if there’s a Republican president at the end of it. But it can be done, with sufficient statecraft done ahead of time. If the delegation of senior statesmen like the one that visited Nixon can convince Bush of it (well, maybe it isn’t possible, but bear with me), it could be arranged for Cheney to resign or be impeached/removed first, then get a prearranged new President (a baggageless, respected caretaker type like Gerald Ford was) nominated and confirmed to replace him, then Bush resigns. If he’d agree to that arrangement, he’d presumably also agree not to force his own impeachment/removal.
That leaves only the identification of the next President to be agreed to, and I can’t think of anyone better suited to take over for a couple of years than George H.W. Bush.
speaking on behalf of the frothing dems, we are pressing Matt Gonzalez to run against Pelosi
Pelosi is a punk. She lacks the balls god gave a goose. She is a disgrace to San Francisco, and so is Dianne Feinstein (Dan White’s third crime, the one that keeps on giving. If only he had killed Moscone and Milk a month earlier or later, the accident of fate that catapulted DiFi into the mayoralty, and thence to the senate, would have been averted.
Barbara Boxer, per contra, is a woman of substance, brains, and courage.
I’ve been joking about the OP’s scenario for awhilenow
but I immediately qualified it with
I am of the belief that
but to make it happen would be the longest of longshots.
For all practical purposes, that boat’s all but left the dock, simply in terms of the timing. The Dems would have to marshal the public evidence of “high crimes and misdemeanors” and engage in a coordinated campaign of presenting it to the public this year, in effect turning the midterms into a referendum on Bush/Cheney malfeasance, to ensure public support for an impeachment undertaking by a Dem Congress in 2007. If they wait until 2007 to start making the public case for impeachment, then impeachment itself, as John Mace pointed out, probably doesn’t happen until early 2008, and by then, what’s the point?
As unlikely as the OP is, doesn’t it make one wonder how luck Bush was that the last election came when it did? If the election had been even 6 months later, I don’t think he would’ve had a chance. After that, he might even have had to pull an LBJ and bow out altogether.
