Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Question: If George is forced to resign

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 11:52 PM
Original message
Question: If George is forced to resign
When will they make him do it?

The Repubs have no primaries scheduled, do they?

How would it affect the late convention?

What if the nominee is Bill Frist?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 12:04 AM
Response to Original message
1. Attempts at answers

When will they make him do it?

The sooner the better for all concerned. There should be some point where they will realize that delay will cost them. Then they will push him overboard.
That, of course, is an individual matter. Some will realize this sooner than others. Others will realize it not at all.
An early Bush/Cheney resignation would giove the Republicans time to regroup and unite behaind a cindidate. (NOTE: I am assuming that Cheney goes down with Bush.)

The Repubs have no primaries scheduled, do they?

Of course they have. They have them scheduled at the same time the Democrats do, in the same states. However, at the moment, they appear to be uncontested.

How would it affect the late convention?

In what way? I don't think it would.

What if the nominee is Bill Frist?

What if it is? If Bush and Cheney resign soon enough, Frist could very well make a go at it. However, if Bush and Cheney resign, the President will be Dennis Hastert. He would have the advantages of incumbancy, just as President Ford did in 1976.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zan_of_Texas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. yeah but this would be BAD ...
If Cheney resigns first, Bush can appoint a new V.P. (25th Amendment to the Constitution)

That person, if approved by a majority of both the Senate and House, becomes V.P.

A two-stage resignation, Cheney first, then Bush, works well for them, because they get to indirectly pick the next President (NOT Hastert).

NOW:
Prez. Bush
VP Cheney

If Cheney is out:
Prez. Bush
VP Bush's choice

If Bush then is out:
Prez. Bush's choice

So, we need to make sure they both resign/get impeached at the same time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. I'd go along with that scenario
Cheney first, Bush will resign and appoint, if we are lucky, Colin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Powell?
After the pack of lies he told to the Security Council on February 5?

He's going down in flames with the others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Who would Bush pick?
He could pick a right wing ideologue and get away with it, as Nixon could not in 1973 when Vice President Agnew resigned. Nixon chose Gerald Ford, a sober conservative but not regrded as very bright. Ford still made a better president than Nixon.

I agree, the best thing is to drive them both out at the same time. However, then we would be dealing with what kind of president Hastert would be.

Hastert would also have to pick a number of cabinet members and other high ranking officials as well. Remember, we are looking at the prospect of a real blood bath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zan_of_Texas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Frist? Hagel? Guiliani?
Bush could try Henry Kissinger first. Just kidding.

He wouldn't try Rumsfeld. Would he.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lisa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. or Ashcroft.
Please, no!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wapsie B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Hastert 's just Delay's boy.
Meaning if he were the one to take over, if and when the upheaval happens, Tommy boy would be calling the shots. That is unless we can tie his sorry punk-ass to some criminal wrong-doings.
I see the repugs running Rudy or Hagel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 14th 2024, 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC