Problem with IMPEACHMENT: PELOSI is NOT a solution to our National Crisis

[Sensitivity]

A strong case could be made for the removal of Bush and Cheney. A sufficient number of
republicans could become convinced that it is necessary for the restoral of
constitutional government and U.S. credibility abroad.

The problem is this -- the constitution would then leave the Speaker of the House,
Nancy Pelosi, the job of Commander In Chief.

As much as I admire Nancy, that is not what the nation or the world need at this time
of crisis in U.S. foreign policy and military conflict. Our friends and foes around
the world recoil at joining in any resolution or pact with the current regime.
Unfortunately, they would be nonplussed at the accession of a world affairs neophyte
to the leadership of the worlds only (and most dangerous) super power.

World leaders are familiar with a Powell, or a Kerry, or a Gore or Kennedy or a Warner.
They may welcome some kind of leadership council. But I don't think a Nancy
Pelosi Presidency would get the world behind the kind of major coalition effort required to resolve the most pressing problems for Iraq, the middle east conflict and the world-wide terrorist threat.

Status quo may be no worse than impeachment given the uncertainty of what would
come after.

[peacebird]

1. oh Bite me. Like Pelosi could be WORSE than Bush/Cheney? Get a grip

[Sensitivity]

2. I was impressed with Dryfus's argument for impeachment on Real Time -- but then started to think . .

[Beam Me Up]

4. Here here.

The Bush administration has been a DISASTER for this country. Every damn one of them should resign in abject SHAME! But of course that requires a conscience which none of them have, apparently.

[Fridays Child]

3. Nancy Pelosi would make a great president.

[Sensitivity]

10. Then she had better get some Foreign Policy visibility fast. She is not known outside U.S. and not

well known even locally in California as a major political leader.

[philosophie_en_rose]

12. As if George W. Bush had any foreign policy experience prior to 2001.

If she was ever to become president, Nancy Pelosi would automatically be visible internationally.

[BelgianMadCow]

33. Doncha kno? Doebiya knows his geopht...geogrha..

anyway, his maps. Plus, he has the right touch with foreign leaders, just ask Angela Merkel.

[neoblues]

20. What's this sudden requirement for a "perfect" President...

We've certainly done with just about the worst possible Presidents in recent decades notwithstanding Bill Clinton. Pelosi would do just fine; very likely even better, and certainly orders of magnitude better (maybe even infinitely better) than the current bunch of criminals. Besides, we really do need a Democratic Presidency to complement the Democratic majorities in Congress--as soon as possible and for as long as possible.

[unblock]

5. let's be real.

even if impeachment and removal of BOTH shrub and cheney were to happen, and happen simultaneously, or at least, without time in between to appoint a replacement veep, then by the time it all happened, after the investigation and trial, pelosi would not have much left of the term, nor would she have a mandate having not been nationally elected.

so the reality is that she would be a caretaker president serving out the last months of the term. the main immediate impact of impeachment would be to paralyze the federal government, which, all things considered, is not a bad thing while shrub and the gang are in the white house.

impeachment would also be a great way to get the dirt out, and set the stage properly for the 2008 election. removal by the senate is beside the point. it's the investigation and trial that are important.

[elocs]

6. Ding! Ding! Ding! Reality check: Pelosi will not become President.

Impeachment does not equal conviction and neither Bush nor Cheney will be convicted. They won't and that is just reality. Both the Clinton impeachment and the potential Nixon impeachment had ongoing investigations that facilitated the impeachment process. There is nothing like that going on now. Nancy Pelosi will be the Speaker of the House and the first female to hold that position. The Impeachment Now crowd don't like that she has said that impeachment if off the table and so they start ripping on her and some even suggest impeaching her if she does not move on impeachment of Bush. I trust the judgment of Pelosi, and Conyers who agrees with her, more than the political armchair quarterbacks here.

[Demeter]

16. A Year Ago NOBODY Would Put Money on Flipping the House or Senate

Events are very fluid right now, and the graswsroots are on the move. They will go where they are led, and great change IS possible. The hypnotic and fascist grip BshCo had on the nation is broken, and the window of Opportunity is open for just a little bit. Stop dragging feet, and get moving!

[elocs]

24. Like I said, I stick with the pros like Pelosi rather than the armchair political quarterbacks. n/t

[niceypoo]

7. If Bush isnt impeached they will just do it all over again sometime in the future

They will never learn any other way.

[MGD]

8. It must not be much of a national crisis

if we, as a nation, aren't willing to even raise taxes let alone enact a draft to win the all important war on terror. Might as well impeach those assholes and let the cards fall where they may.

[Freeusfromthechurch]

9. "Pelosi for President"

Let the trials begin immediately.

Let me put it this way. If he isn't impeached, I will never vote Democrat ever again. I'll be one of those, "He's splitting the party".

Justice is not a choice it's a duty

[philosophie_en_rose]

11. Ham Sandwich (D-Subway) is a better president than George W. Bush.

Nancy Pelosi is already doing better work for this country than George W. Bush or Dick Cheney. The only people that need to worry about President Pelosi are addicted to pork.

[pooja]

13. Oh, FUCK protocol... Maybe we need a little shaking up to get anything

done... Pardon the vulgarity. If anyone thinks that keeping that illegal mob in power is good, then kiss your country good bye!!!!

[Freeusfromthechurch]

14. That's what I'm talking about pooja!!!!

[porphyrian]

15. Irrelevant and cowardly. - n/t

[Zhade]

21. Hear, hear!

I'm liking you more and more every day, man!

[porphyrian]

26. Dammit. I'll have to try to be more of an asshole...

;)

[Dangerman]

17. Pelosi is a coward!

Why can't she impeach that bastard when she had the chance!

[jmowreader]

18. The only way for Pelosi to become president...

is if Shrub and Dick were to disappear simultaneously, or nearly so.

Remember the last time a president failed to complete his term? It was 1974. Agnew resigned, and Nixon appointed Gerald FOrd in his stead. Then Nixon resigned, and Ford became president.

The same thing would happen here--either Cheney would leave and Shrub would choose a new VP, or Shrub would leave and President Cheney would choose a new VP.

[neoblues]

19. We all know what Justice would be...

and these proposed problems and practicalities neither make such an outcome any worse than what we've had nor are they so large they couldn't be handled. However, such actions would indeed consume much of the activity of the Congress and potentially interfere to some degree with getting on with the business of the nation. Subsequent effects on our Election 2008 success would be hard to predict; perhaps that would depend upon the outcome of any proceedings--so if we did go forward, we'd better be sure it would succeed (though Bush does deserve the ignominy of at least having impeachment proceedings, alas, what he deserves cannot be the primary concern).

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. Hate to bust that bubble

but the problem is that you think a WOMAN would not make a good CIC?

Bite me...

There are many other reasons why this will not happen... but because Pelosi is a female is not one of them... or at least should not be one of them. If it is, well then we are not as advanced as we claim to be, are we?

[Nozebro]

23. Total rubbish. Bereft of any coherent, logical argument. EOM

nt

[Sensitivity]

25. OK. I would love IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS. But what isuccesion saves the nation

[Zorra]

27. Pelosi would immediately have infinitely more respect from world

leaders than Bu*h and Cheney the second she was sworn in as Prez.

The whole world already knows that Bu*h and Cheney are stupid and evil.

[Sensitivity]

28. And they are ready to rally behind Pelosi. Get real. That is not how it works!

In most of the rest of the world, national leaders emerge through long stints of
political struggle or long terms at the help of their Party.

Respect is built over time and by reputation. Not by virtue of a title.
George Bush never got respect. Because he never earned it and eventually
earned the scorn of most of the leaders with which he had to work.

[Zorra]

29. I simply said that she would get infinitely more respect from world

leaders without having to do anything. I did not say that world leaders would rally around her.

The world already considers Bu*h and Cheney to be ignorant, violent, ugly Americans.

At least a President Pelosi could start with a clean slate.

[MaraJade]

30. I am truly worried about Nancy. . .

I recently read an article in The Week about Mrs. Pelosi:

http://www.theweekmagazine.com/article.aspx?id=1739

and I am deeply concerned. If Pelosi's current agenda is followed, I fear that Democrats will be thrown out
in large numbers at the next election, something that freedom-loving people in this nation cannot afford.

The first concern is that she appears to advocate going soft on
illegal immigrants, a thing that most Americans, Democrats and Republicans, are against. People are not
stupid. The people know that any and all welfare costs related to the support of undocumented people will
come out of the pockets of taxpayers (i.e. all of us working people). People clearly prefer that America help her
own people in need first and not become the safety-net for other nations who are failing to support their own.
People also know that there is a "race to the bottom" as relating to wages and to standard of living because of
the uncontrolled influx of persons who are willing to work for next to nothing. People also fear terrorists
sneaking across the borders, a fear that is not unfounded. Reasonable people don't want bigotry or hatred of women
written into the constitution either. Most reasonable people aren't extremists who are
against immigration, but most people want something done.

The second concern is Mrs. Pelosi's tendancy to strong-arm people, a la DeLay. People want reasonable persuasion
applied to those who are recalcitrant, but no one wants bullying. K-Street is OUT! People are clearly sick and tired of that
sort of thing. Non-cooperation in the past brought the government to a near standstill and people view that
as a major problem.

Both of these things are wrong-headed, and indicate a blindness to what the people actually put her in power for.

What America clearly wants is cooperation accross the aisle to end the Iraq war, and answers regarding
economic and domestic issues, such as the misapplication of the Patriot Act (domestic spying) and the malfeasance in
Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Most people also want reasonable reforms to the immigration issue
that allow people in legally, stopping terrorists from entering, while allowing people who contribute to
our society and economy to enter without degrading wage rates and without encouraging business to devalue jobs.
People are seeking answers to the energy and oil crisis and want government to encourage automakers and
manufacturers to produce energy efficient vehicles and other products. People want a government that
encourages business to find answers that will make this nation independent of fossil fuels.
People want environmental reforms because of the clear evidence of damage from global warming.
People want reforms of Medicare Part D, and some sort of healthcare help. People want the repeal of the
stupid new Bankruptcy Laws. People want an end to jobs leaving the country and tax assistance to companies
that export employment. Finally, people are terrified that our very system of voting has been tampered with and
they want someone to restore confidence in this, the most important of democratic acts.

This is why the Democrats were elected--to solve these particular issues. The Republicans did nothing to
straighten out matters and so the people naturally turned to us, the populist party.

What the people DO NOT WANT is welfare support for people who have not entered this country legally. They do not want the
issue of vote tampering ignored; they definitely do not want Iraq and the attendant issues of Abu Ghraib and the Patriot act
forgotten and they do they want partisan strong-arming substituted for finding an answer to problems. People do
not care about the Washington shell-game of power in government.

If Pelosi turns into a Democratic version of DeLay, intent upon her own power and forgetting the people, she will be out of
there in 2008, along with most of the Democratic Congress. Democrats ignore the people at their peril on this one.
If we want to hold onto power in 2008, we need to think differently. We need to put the people first, and not some
stupid partisan issues.

As Obama said so eloquently, "the job is to represent the people to Washington, NOT represent Washington to
the people." We Democrats forget this at our peril.

[ConsAreLiars]

31. Looking for the "Idiot" award?

The whole planet knows that the PNAC-Chimpy control over the US military and foreign policy has been a disaster. They would welcome any sane person as an alternative. Famous or not. YOU may like the status quo and think it is better than impeachment, but projecting your fear of uncertainty (believing it to be worse than the mass murders and butchery of the status quo) onto the whole world is just nuts.

Get a grip.

[Sensitivity]

35. The point is to FOCUS on ENDING THE FIASCO rather than doing things thant DON'T change the real prob

World would have expected some kind of 'NO CONFIDENCE' vote and a
quick change of government. They would expect a "Leader of the Opposition"
to take over. The U.S. system is not "normal." Will impeachement
produce the major change in policy and national leadership needed?

The house and senate uniting to stop this god-awful war ASAP requires
serious political focus and progresive backbone. Begining impeachment when
you have not clear way to put the needed leadership in place is not a solution.

[BelgianMadCow]

32. TOTAL BS. Welcome to my scantily populated ignore list, no-profiler

[Richard Steele]

34. Sorry, but that's just SILLY.

"Status quo may be no worse than impeachment given
the uncertainty of what would come after."

And you base this premise upon her lack of Foreign Policy experience?
Just how many Presidents have EVER come to the office with
such a backround?

This is just a real stretch. I ain't hardly buyin' it.

[Sensitivity]

36. Being serioius about dealing with the real world crisis is not silly. Leadership wanted not games.

As much as the world hates Bush, the are looking for Democrats to provide
leadership to solve the problem not political manuevers that don't.

[Richard Steele]

37. No, but your notion that she could be WORSE than B*sh is very silly indeed.

If you want to argues that another person
might be BETTER than her, you could certainly
make a case for that.

But to claim that this single factor means we
might be better off "Staying the Course"? Silly.

That the USA would somehow be ostracized by the
world because of this one supposed lack? Silly.

The President is _NOT_ the sole member of the Executive Branch, y'know.

"Worldwide respect for Foreign Policy expertise" is
not a requirement to sit in the Oval Office, an
it never has been.

It is certainly a desireable quality to have
in an Ambassador, or a SECRETARY OF STATE.

But so long as a hypothetical "President Pelosi"
appoints diplomats who know the basic definition
of the word "diplomacy",
and so long as she DOESN'T appoint an OilCo executive
whose knowledge of the world is focused on a single
nation that doesn't exist any more Secretary of
State....
then her Presidency would be LIGHT YEARS ahead of
what we have now.

To suggest otherwise, is just SILLY.

[thedeanpeople]

38. <deleted>

[pat_k]

39. Turning accusations of "partisan coup" against them is simple. . .

The Dems just need to make sure the public knows that it is up to Bush and Cheney to "spare the nation" from the disruption of impeachment by doing the following:

1. Cheney resigns, Bush nominates new VP.
   
   The VP must be confirmed by both the House and Senate. Since we elected these folks, if they object to a nominee, that objection reflects our will.


2. Bush resigns, new VP is sworn in as President.


3. New President nominates a VP.
   
   Once again, the VP he/she nominates must be confirmed by both the House and Senate, and therefore meets with our approval (through the people who represent us).

The Democratic members of the Congress fighting for impeachment need to sincerely express their fervent hope that Bush and Cheney do this. They need to be clear that they want things to play out this way because they do not want the nation to have ANY Question about whether or not their motivation is partisan.

Of course, if Bush and Cheney choose to be forcibly removed through impeachment, then the succession We the People have established in the 25th amendment will govern, and the Democratic Speaker will take the office of the Presidency. Since this succession is in accordance with the laws we established, it is also a reflection of our will.

Pointing out the choices that are available to the criminals in the WH could be a very effective way to speed up the whole process. It shifts the accusations that "they are subjecting the nation to a long painful process" to Bush and Cheney.

Republicans are likely to be VERY motivated to pressure Bush and Cheney to take the resignation "exit strategy."

Republicans may not be willing to defend the indefensible for long. When Bush nullified McCain's anti-torture amendment (which passed with over 90 votes) he slapped them in the face. They would be hard pressed to defend Bush for abusing signing statements nullify the overwhelming will of the people in order to keep torture "on the table." Warner, Graham, McCain, and Collins (may have been others I'm not recalling) came out against the "War Criminals Protection Act." The "compromise" they got was not much of one, it just shifted the responsibility for actually approving torture to Bush (as opposed to approving it themselves and becoming War Criminals). Specter dismissed the WH defense of the criminal surveillance program as absurd. There are some other "rational" Republicans (Snowe, Hagel, and Lugar).

Repubs will certainly try the "Un-Patriotic to attack the President in War time" bit (the only "attack" on impeachment we have heard out of them) but that doesn't go far if Repubs aren't willing to defend against the indefensible charges (which they aren't even doing now).

Bush and Cheney are an albatross that many Republicans would be happy to get rid of.

An as long as Democratic leaders accuse in strong and clear language (no more hiding truth in euphemism) "debates" about the charges will be the nightly fare on every news-entertainment show. Debates about:

• Whether or not Bush and Cheney's claim to have a "get out of jail free" card (unitary authoritarian executive) are absurd;


• Whether or not Bush and Cheney confess to high crimes every time they invoke the "unitary" fig leaf;


• Whether or not Bush and Co abused power to terrorize the nation into a criminal war of aggression. (No amount of "stretching" can support the notion that Iraq had the capability to drop a nuclear bomb anywhere within the United States -- not in 45 minutes; not in a year; not in 5 years.);


• Whether or not forcing through the War Criminals Protection Act demonstrates consciousness of guilt.


• Whether or not they should be turned over to the Hague, given that SCOTUS declared them to be War Criminals in Hamdam.

When the Democratic leadership gets serious about impeachment, Repubs may have Bush and Cheney out within a week.