I’ve been rattling this around in my head for a while now, and Bush’s reportedly tepid response to the Iraq Commission’s report–and his recent comparing of himself to Harry Truman–has forced me to the conclusion that, yes, he should be impeached.
Now the response one often hears as to why this is a bad idea is that it automatically means: President Cheney.
I disagree.
History shows that impeachment of a president does not automatically mean power devolves onto the vice-president. Impeachment is merely the first of two stages required to remove someone from office. Two presidents have been impeached in our history; in neither instance did the vice-president wind up as commander-in-chief.
I don’t think he needs to be impeached to be removed from office. I think he needs to be impeached to get his attention. Bush has ceased worrying about how his policies are impacting upon our soldiers and their families and the people of Iraq and–let’s face it–the global community, in terms of their own interests and their relationships with us. His major concern appears to be about his legacy and his place in history. If he thinks his place in history will be as the first president to be impeached and removed, that might be the cold dash of water in the face he needs.
Besides, it’s only just: If a president can be impeached over getting a bløw jøb from one person, certainly a president can be impeached over giving a screw job to 250 million people.
To paraphrase “Heroes”–“Impeach the President; Save the World.”
PAD
• 
>On behalf of Britain, thanks for introducing the grey squirrel to our shores, by the way. 🙂
And on behalf of my part of Canada, thanks to Britain for sending us ‘English’ [a.k.a. ‘House’] sparrows. (Hey, I like the little fuzzballs.)
As for the impeachment thing …
I agree with mr. Myers that impeachment proceedings are very serious and should only be used in very dire circumstances. Question being, does what Shrub has done so far qualify? I’d be tempted to say “yes”. Then again, I’m not a constitutional lawyer. (And that’s a good thing.)
On behalf of Britain, thanks for introducing the grey squirrel to our shores, by the way. 🙂
It was revenge for the introduction of European Starlings, which were brought here by some kooks who wanted America to have all the birds mentioned by Shakespeare.
My motives, conversely, were purely malicious.
What are you nimrods talking about? To impeach a president is to charge him with a crime.
As commander in chief of the US armed forces, Bush is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. There are military laws against fraud, waste, and abuse. If Bush isn’t subject to answer for arbitrarily invading another country, at the expense of $½ trillion, then no one is subject to that law. There’s even a “general article” against disorder, just in case people simply don’t like you.
“He broke the law” was the mantra for impeaching Clinton. Don’t fûçkìņg tell me the president is above being charged for breaking the law.
CLINTON NEWS NETWORK
By THE QUESTION
————————————————–
I think we all should stop buying ANYTHING with the Marvel or DC/Vertigo name on it until those companies stop supporting people as insulting as Peter David.
IMPEACH JOE QUESADA! HE HAS LOST CONTROL OVER THE ONCE GREAT MARVEL UNIVERSE!
And no, there is no way to possibly insult people more than Peter David has. Calling fifty million people stupid because they disagree with you politically is beyond mean, it’s sociopathic. Constantly nitpicking every little thing this administration does, yet never complaining about the TERRORISTS is just bizarre behavior.
And Clinton was not impeached for getting bløwjøbš. Do some research people. There was an investigation. All of you politically correct liberals get upset everytime they show a girls ášš cheek in the comics, yet you make all kinds of excuses for Clinton and demonize the women who brought the sexual harassment charges against him.
The general public, at least was not aware at the time how uncooperative he was with the investigation and how far he went to protect his own name. Obviously, in hindsight, impeachment was not a good idea. Once the facts came out, they should have stopped. It wound up hurting the Republicans. Clinton was reprimanded by the court though, for not being truthful though, IIRC.
The difference between Clinton and Bush, is that the reasons people didn’t like Clinton were PERSONAL. Because of what he actually DID (or didn’t do). People like the “intelligent” Mr David were calling a Bush a moronic retard from day one. They blame him for dividing the country when he won the election with a fitty/fifty split when he won the election against the vice president of the previous administration. The country was already divided people when Bush took office. Not many outside of Texas knew much about Bush until the elections.
Meanwhile, the esteemed Mr Gore is out there calling Global Warming a bigger threat than terrorism, and yet people can’t stand it when the Clinton administration gets any criticism about how it dealt with Al Queda.
———————————————————
BUT THE RIGHT WING MEDIA DIGRESSES
Global Warming causing hurricanes…Bush botching New Orleans because he hates black people…PETA comparing every kid eating a burger to the Nazis exterminating the Jews…invading Iraq and Afghanistan for Oil…Florida being a banana republic and throwing the election even when every recount was in Bush’s favor and it was the Democrats who wanted to throw out most of the votes in the state including absentee votes…All conservatives hate gays even though the Democrats and Republicans mostly have the same positions on same sex marriage and civil unions including Clinton, Bush and Kerry…and never portraying Arab terrorists as bad guys in Hollywood movies…the Dan Rather incident…Disney financing Fahrenheit 9/11…Green Day…Dixie Chicks: Shut Up and Sing…Republicans hating Black people, Hispanic people, Arabs, and Little People…the evils of playing unpleasant music videos to torture non combatant prisoners…yet Mr David claims the conservative media is out to brainwash us all!
Peter David, author of Disney’s The Little Mermaid comics adaptation and the Fantastic Four novelization.
Very brave Pete. A lone liberal voice in an unending sea of corporate conservative stooges.
Yet, I am sure those checks from Disney and Fox are helping to pay for the kids college tuition’s, huh?
Peter David, consumer advocate.
—————————————————————–
CIVIL WAR II: THE BEYONDER THUNDERDOME
The majority of Democrats won’t get near impeachment because it would just make them look bad. You don’t impeach because you disagree with someone. Comic book writers can accuse Bush of anything they want. I can accuse Mr David of molesting his daughter, but that doesn’t mean he should be sent to jail without strong evidence and a trial and conviction.
Jesus Christ, none of this has anything to do with whether or not you agree with the Iraq War or any aspects of the war on terror. Mad props to the Liberals here who actually have the nerve to point that out. Again, Mr David is far left of most of the Democratic Party even.
Peter David cannot possibly be this naive to believe half the stuff he says on this blog. He just wants to brainwash all of you little twenty year olds out there who don’t understand that politics are cyclical and that sometimes people are actually going to disagree with you and vote a different way than you. Clinton had eight years in office, yet you can’t stand it now that someone else is in there. Don’t be so spoiled.
And pointing out simple facts and trying to create grand conspiracies around them is not clever. It’s not even creative.
David constantly insults Bush’s “ego,” yet look at this guy and what he says.
COMIC BOOK WRITERS ARE NOT IMPORTANT PEOPLE. Get over it!
Doctors, Police Officers, Scientists, Teachers, Soldiers and yes, Politicians are important people. Everyone needs to get over these “artists” and their personality cults…which is exactly what they are. Making up cool super hero stories, then stepping up on your soap box and telling us how to solve all the world’s problems and telling us how to vote is just way, way too cute. And he’s not even offering any solutions, as most celebrities don’t.
AND YOU ALL NEED TO GET OVER TREATING POLITICS AS A CULT. Having cult like devotion to any political ideology never works out for anyone! History has constantly shown this to us. This goes for right wing, left wing and all others! And yes, you people who defend half this tripe Mr David is preaching are political cultists.
It’s not just politics. Online geeks approach everything with cult like devotion. If you don’t agree with the “group” then they constantly harass you. They nitpick every little aspect of a writer or artist, or movie or director they don’t like then hold up all the things they do like as being near perfect and go on and on about them. If people are naive of any little detail concerning any of these things they rail on them like there is no tomorrow.
But I don’t need to explain how it works to anyone here. We all know how it works and we’ve all been on the receiving end of this kind of terrible, malicious behavior. Having this type of attitude towards comics or movies is bad enough, but applying them to politics, especially in a time of war is just horrific.
Yes, people can disagree, and they should discuss things in a constructive way. If you think the majority of things Mr David rants about here are constructive then you have serious, serious problems.
And, cult is indeed the right word to use. Just because there are no altars or chants doesn’t make it any less of a cult than anything with religious connotations.
Yeah, the Republicans tried to impeach Clinton and it was wrong. But that was before 9/11 and all those horrible deaths that occurred on that day. If you’re trying to pay back the Republicans for that, then that’s just sick. If you’re just interested in beating the other political faction in this country…then THAT’S ALL YOU’RE GOING TO DO.
Obviously Mr David is so driven by hatred of the opposition that he puts beating them at any cost above actually accomplishing anything! And yes, if you resort to this type of malicious name calling and self imposed one sided naivety then you put beating the other side, and the personal satisfaction that gives you above anything else.
And no, this is not about, me, I do not expect to win any kind of argument here, not anywhere on the Internet where liberals always far outnumber people of other political ideologies. I am not brave for standing up to Mr David, as he is not brave for saying the things he does. The soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are brave. Yet everyone is so, so quick to admonish what they are doing…today, and since before this war ever started!
I am sure that Mr David does care about all of these issues deep down, but he is far more interested in beating the Republican party and the Bush Administration and all those who agree with him. He puts his own ego far above the lives of those who have died at the hands of the terrorists and because of this war. And this goes for anyone who defends the things he says, but it goes double for Mr David since he is using the goodwill of all of the people who have bought his non political books for years and put him in this position.
There are many ways Mr David, or any other celebrity can go about expressing themselves online. No elaborate disguises are needed. He can simply not use his name. Or if he must, then at least create an OFF TOPIC FORUM on his site so these things can be discussed with more privacy and not dumped on all his fans who do not care to hear his insulting rants.
But ofcourse, I will be portrayed as a book burning Nazi, as everyone is who disagrees with these types of bizarre celebrity statements. And Peter David would make Moby and Linda Ronstadt proud, indeed. Yet, it is Mr David and those who defend him who are bullying everyone into submission. But most liberals look the other way, since he is on their side, never considering that he could be hurting their ideology.
The sad thing is that I am sure I agree with many David’s opinions and those of his fans when it comes to comics and actual on topic subjects. Civil Wars are a bìŧçh. Ask Iron Man.
THE QUESTION WILL NOT RETURN
The Question, may I suggest editing your posts before hitting the submit button? Yours was rambling, incoherent, and like hëll to read. It’s not your ideology that was problematic, but your writing skills.
I’m not sure what blog you’ve been reading, but it can’t have been this one. There are a variety of political views represented here regularly, running the gamut from hardcore conservative to hardcore liberal. People here disagree with Peter all the time, myself included. While Peter is often blunt with those with whom he disagrees, he never takes it to a personal level as long as we don’t.
Your assessment of the lack of importance of comic-book writers smacks of jealousy. The fact that more people are interested in what Peter has to say than are interested in what you have to say (I’m taking a wild guess that that’s the case) is not a reflection of any sheep mentality. It’s a reflection of the respect Peter has earned as a writer. If you want equal attention, “The Question,” no one is preventing you from earning it.
And the vast majority of posters here recognize the heroism of people like soldiers and police officers. In fact, one of the regulars here, Jerry C, is an honest-to-goodness police officer. I’ve never heard him complain about receiving a lack of respect from other posters in this blog.
You know, I think “The Question” is actually a squirrel.
Impeachment is not the removal from office.
My point was that the purpose behind the impeachment of Clinton was to try and remove him from office, a move made by Republicans, when the accusation was made that Dems do nothing but scream ‘impeachment!’.
The same for Grey Davis. The push for recall, and thus removal, came from a Republican: “the initial drive for the recall was fueled by funds from the personal fortune of U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, a Republican who hoped to replace Davis himself.”
So, such a claim is pretty ridiculous when you look at who has actually been targetted for removal from office recently.
The Question
I have a question: what was the point of that little rant? Was there some sort of hope that PAD would repent for an imagined sin or something?
THE QUESTION WILL NOT RETURN
Let me get my violin…
“Squirrels to be given contraceptives.”
What’s the position of the Church on this?
Do they sell them in squirrel highschools?
——————
“Bill Mulligan asked:
Is there anywhere an actual decent test of political persuasion?
Have you tried http://www.politicalcompass.org?”
This test is better, but I think it is biased to the left. Right wing opinions are caricatured a little bit. The test also shows the problem of figuring out ideology based on abstract questions.
—————-
As for the Question, I have two questions:
1) Is there any point of answering this rant, considering the person who wrote it said he will notr return? This is not a discussion really. One pointless discussion was enough for me.
2) Why have such a nervous brakedown just because a comic book writer voices his opinions about political issues in his own blog?
“The difference between Clinton and Bush, is that the reasons people didn’t like Clinton were PERSONAL.”
I think the reason people don’t like Bush is because they disagree with his opinions and think he has done a bad job being president.
—————–
“You know, I think “The Question” is actually a squirrel.”
Squirrels are more left leaning on social issues but fiscally conservative.
Speaking of sociopathic, have y’all seen this?
THE QUESTION WILL NOT RETURN
Good, because after reading one particular line in your poorly written screed (if you have an ounce of decency–which is open to question–you know exactlt which one) I was hoping that PAD would ban you, erase your posting and make sure that nobody from your isp ever posts again.
Any good points you may have are buried in the overall tone of smug intolerance.
Oh, and look up the meaning of “cult”. It isn’t what you think it is.
Why the hëll should PAD or anyone else have to use a pseudonym to express themselves? You seem to hold mere comic book writers in contempt so why must he disguise himself? It makes no sense.
I’d rather spend my time with people who have opinions I disagree with but are decent interesting folks than someone who shares my views but has the kind of attitudes that you express in your post. For your sake, I hope this doesn’t reflect your actual personality.
Question… Time to take your Med’s, fruitloop.
> You know, I think “The Question” is actually a squirrel.
It’s certainly not a sparrow. They have more sense …
Have you tried “>http://www.politicalcompass.org?
yeah, I came out as libertarian/right, which is fine but when they show where famous people fit in there isn’t even one person in my quadrant! I feel lonely…the again, I won’t have to worry about being invited to dinner with Robert Mugabe and Mamoud Abbas
As far as our ‘friend’ the Question goes, I have only one thing to say.
I know Vic Sage, sir. Vic Sage is an old friend of mine. And you, sir, are no Vic Sage.
“yeah, I came out as libertarian/right, which is fine but when they show where famous people fit in there isn’t even one person in my quadrant! I feel lonely…the again, I won’t have to worry about being invited to dinner with Robert Mugabe and Mamoud Abbas.”
The people they show in their samples are mostly heads of states. As far as I know there are no right wing liberterians who became heads of states. Milton Friedman is in your quadrant.
However, I don’t think this test is that reliabe, it tends to push to extremes.
There was really only seven things that I saw as meriting any response in “The Questions” entire post.
(1) “AND YOU ALL NEED TO GET OVER TREATING POLITICS AS A CULT.”
(2) “The soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are brave. Yet everyone is so, so quick to admonish what they are doing…today, and since before this war ever started!”
People do debate here and stand fast behind their POV, but we’ve also had debates where many here have changed their stance by the end of two or three days debate. Even my stubborn self has shifted my POV at times due to new facts or new events. Cult members don’t do that.
We also have many here, on both sides of the political isle, who have made very clear that we support and appreciate the troops and the hard job they have to do. Most posters here have always made clear that the “wrong” being committed is by The Commander in Chief’s decisions and not by the soldiers as a whole.
With those two lines, you’ve shown that you’ve never read this site for longer then a minute or two or you just have no ability to comprehend what it is that you are reading. This really does undercut your credibility. Just that should zero out any further need to respond to your points, but I’m a masochist at heart.
(3) “I am not brave for standing up to Mr David…”
No kidding. And even less so then you likely believe yourself to be since you posted completely anonymously, threw a bunch of insults and venom and then declared this to be your one and only post.
(4) “…as he is not brave for saying the things he does.”
He signs his own name, puts his ideas on his own site, defends his POV and risks his sales and income because of twits out there that think it’s a really good idea to try and hurt people financially because they espouse ideas or points of view that the twits out there don’t agree with and feel a need try and silence. I find that this shows quite a bit more guts then your post shows.
(5) “But ofcourse, I will be portrayed as a book burning Nazi, as everyone is who disagrees with these types of bizarre celebrity statements.”
Funny, but quite a few of us have disagreed with “our cult leader” and never been painted with that brush. Rare is the debate here where it descends to that low a level. Most of us are quite friendly with each other over our disagreements. Granted, there are exceptions. But those are far and few in between in my experience here. And even then, most of the flame throwing of that level that I’ve seen in my time here has been by passers by and directed towards PAD and others here that agree with him on a touchy topic.
(6) “Yet, it is Mr David and those who defend him who are bullying everyone into submission. But most liberals look the other way, since he is on their side, never considering that he could be hurting their ideology.”
Huh… I’m left of center and there are several posters ON THIS THREAD who describe themselves as Democrats or Liberals and we still find it in ourselves to disagree with PAD’s assertion that Bush should be impeached or have disagreed with his points on other threads about Bush or the actions needed to course correct Iraq. Somehow, I’ve missed being bullied all this time by other posters or our host. Maybe you really should read a blog before you post on it.
(7) “THE QUESTION WILL NOT RETURN”
Then good fortune smiles upon us after all. That line alone may even be proof that there is a God after all. Hopefully, you’ll be good to your word.
Have a nice night guys.
“Have you tried “>http://www.politicalcompass.org?”
I came out:
Economic Left/Right: -2.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.62
Libertarian/Left.
That put me in with the Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela. I’m wasn’t too sure about that, But I noticed that it does put me directly opposite Bush, Blair and Chirac.
Economic Left/Right: -4.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.46
While the test pegged me correctly as Libertarian/Left, I think I’m a lot more moderate than this as far as economic and foreign relations issues go, at least.
I felt like some of the propositions presented in the economics/world stage bits force you to choose the leftist position as the only rational choice. I mean, “Globalization should serve humanity or the interests of corporation?” I can’t imagine anyone not choosing “humanity”. A better proposition should be:
“What benefits corporations ultimately benefits humanity as a whole. Do you Agree or Disagree?” I’d still answer: “Disagree”, but it would present it in a way that rightists could chose “Agree.”
Economic Left/Right: -4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.12
My impression of the test was similar to Rene’s, with similar results.
Y’know, the fact that there are so many Libertarians around this board must mean we’re all really well read and the Dewey Decimal system is our collective best friend.
I personally find it both kinda neat and slightly ironic that I’m in the same zone as the Dalai Lama. Just wish the grid had been on their chart so I could actually see HOW close.
(C’mon, half credit, at least?)
God, The Question makes ME look normal. That’s saying something. I think my buddy Bill had it right. I really don’t think that THE QUESTION has read more than a few lines of any given post. Gotta love, though, “No elaborate disguises are needed” from someone under a name like THE QUESTION. If we hook him up with Allen Iverson, can we forget they exsist, as they will cancel each other out?
Now, as to whether or not Bush should be impeached? Well, the only drawback that I can see are the people that would look at it and say, “Sure, they went after Clinton, so when they have the chance, of COURSE the Democrats are going after Bush, JUST FOR REVENGE.” (I wouldn’t be among them, but I bet they’re out there.) The only way to avoid this is by having incontrovertible, iron-clad evidence that Bush KNEW the information was wrong.
Sorry, PAD, everybody, that parenthetical line was supposed to be after the Dewey Decimal system line, not the Dalai Lama.
And I was just thinking about it. Did the Question actually ASK anything?
I sorta like the way Sasha’s post was leading, with the investigation, but the conspiracy theorist in me says why give them any more time to hide anything? Why NOT do an investigation now?
Yeah, the test does seem a bit rigged (or, to be nice, poorly thought out). Some of the questions bugged me because they, as Rene pointed out, didn’t really leave you a choice but to agree or disagree with them even if that wasn’t quite what you really felt. Their test would be totally screwed if they added a “neither” option into the mix.
Tests like this are poor indicators of truth for the same reason that many polls and studies are. They don’t pose genuinely honest questions or they fail to allow for real world, personal circumstances. Six or seven months ago, my wife and I took an economics poll for one of the local (and major) universities that my mother-in-law (who works there) asked us to help with. After I took the written test, set up much like this online test, I told one of the people behind it that I probably messed up their results.
After reading and rereading several of the questions over and over again, I kept writing my own answer after the questions or picking what they felt was the wrong choice and explaining why. One question I told the designer about was asking if you thought it was a financially smart move to leave your job for another job that paid $3,000 or more less per year. They docked your overall score if you checked “yes” for that question. I checked “yes” and wrote out that I was looking at doing the same thing now. However, the new job would entail moving to an area of Virginia that was about $3,500 less in annual cost of living and had an average home price of about 65% of what my area’s is. I could get the new job, sell my house, buy or build a new one there that would be almost totally paid off from day one and be financially ahead of where I am now. I also pointed out, in discussing it with the designer, that one of my co-workers took an almost 35% pay cut in hooking up with our department. Of course, he did move here from Upstate New York. Not only was his baseline salary/cost of living ratio just about equal to what he was doing before, but he paid off his house here and stuck money into the bank with the sale of his house in New York. No mortgage payments means he’s well ahead of where he was before.
I got kind of a blank look, a few comments about not having thought of that when designing the test and reworking some of the questions and a quick wave out the door. Months later, according to my mother-in-law, the test remains as it was.
The moral of the story? Uh…. what a second… might have one…. Yeah!
Squirrels are evil.
“Why NOT do an investigation now?”
I’d love to see some serious investigations done now. I just don’t think now is the time for impeachment.
Most of what the most militantly anti-Bush crowd is holding up as reasons to impeach Bush for are week and a bit iffy at best. I’d love to see Bush and crew nailed for their screw ups and wrong doings. I’d just prefer to wait until the job can be done right the first (and likely only) time and the reasons are airtight enough to not allow too much convincing or useful propagandizing by the right and their public supporters.
Unpopular as it may be with some on the left, the Democrats best options may be to try and do the right thing by taking hundreds of small steps rather then just one or two large steps. Or even, in the case of jumping the gun on impeachment, one or two giant missteps.
They didn’t win the last election. The Republicans lost it. That’s not a position they can afford overplay their “strengths” from. Some of Bush’s public failings and loss of support have been partly due to him and his people acting as though they were handed super mandates after their “huge” electoral victories of one or two percent. He’s also lost support for diving headfirst and without thought into an unpopular venture. The Democrats need to learn from those mistakes and they need to be careful that they don’t act stupid and put themselves back out of power if they want to accomplish anything in the long term.
“…holding up as reasons to impeach Bush for are weak and a bit iffy at best.”
Sigh….
“But ofcourse, I will be portrayed as a book burning Nazi, as everyone is who disagrees with these types of bizarre celebrity statements.”
No. Just an idiot who distorts positions and snipes from anonymity.
“The sad thing is that I am sure I agree with many David’s opinions and those of his fans when it comes to comics and actual on topic subjects. Civil Wars are a bìŧçh. Ask Iron Man.”
I would but, y’know, what with him being fictional and all, his opinion carries not much weight…although, curiously, it does carry more than yours.
“THE QUESTION WILL NOT RETURN”
Thus proving conclusively that the Question is not, in fact, James Bond.
PAD
It’s a question that ranges from center to a cardinal extreme. As an extreme safety-net anarchist, you probably don’t have the perspective to flag the questions that range from the center to the opposite extreme.
The question unambiguously asked you if taking a cut in pay was financially advantageous. You immediately defaulted to your coupon-cutting “I can save money by sacrificing money” mentality, which I’m sure the question was meant to catch.
As Joseph Campbell pointed out, thinking you can have it all is a sign of immaturity. So the point of the financial question.
I’m currently in a job that is tailored to me and might have answered the financial question the same way you did. But now that I think about it deliberately, no, working in a job that suits me more is not more financial advantageous than simply taking a job that pays more money.
Maybe they simply felt it wasn’t their place to lecture you how your “I’m saving money by sacrificing money” mentality puts you at a financial disadvantage.
They have to get the kooks out of the door somehow.
“Civil Wars are a bìŧçh. Ask Iron Man.”
Was there ever a serious discussion about the positions of the two sides in this political argument? It is fictional, but interesting from a philosophical POV. Thought experiments are a good way to figure things out without an a priori ideological bias
————-
Jerry C, above there is a difficult test of your will power and patience. I’m sure you will be able to handle it well.
Micha,
Easy as pie.
With the control of the Senate now suddenly in doubt again (due to the possibility of Tim Johnson’s health forcing him to resign) it just shows how tricky it is to make any truly educated predictions on what will happen in politics.
That siad, one hopes that even the most partisan would wish Senator Johnson a speedy recovery.
Here is a link to a blog by a young Algerian-American. But this blog should not be read for this reason. It should be read because it offers the most serious, mature and thoughtful analysis of the situation with IOraq, Iran Lebanon etc. that I’ve ever read. And he does it from a pro-American point of view (but smart pro-American). His essays are long but brilliant.
The Moor Next Door
http://wahdah.blogspot.com/
South Dakota’s governor is republican, and Thune’s campaign resorted to paying webloggers to attack Daschle to unseat him. If Johnson doesn’t recover, these needy áššhølëš will probably give the senate back to the republicans.
Whatever afflicted Johnson, they got to him almost immediately. Between a stroke and an aneurysm, I’m guessing his recovery from a stroke is more likely.
That siad, one hopes that even the most partisan would wish Senator Johnson a speedy recovery.
Want to bet on what Ann Coulter would say? 🙂
This is the type of situation that causes new legislation to be drafted, depending on how things turn out. Should Mr. Johnson pass, or resigns from office, and the Republican governor appoint a Republican to replace him, there would probably be outrage, even though it’s well within the governor’s right to make such an appointment.
So if a Senator leaves (for whatever reason) before the end of his term, the governor of his/her state assigns a replacement rather than a special election being held?
Wow, great incentive for assassinations/poisonings/etc… that completely pìššëš all over the idea of elections…
This is the type of situation that causes new legislation to be drafted, depending on how things turn out. Should Mr. Johnson pass, or resigns from office, and the Republican governor appoint a Republican to replace him, there would probably be outrage, even though it’s well within the governor’s right to make such an appointment.
Wow, great incentive for assassinations/poisonings/etc… that completely pìššëš all over the idea of elections…
Don’t think there would be much outrage…well, justifiable outrage anyway. It’s not the first time it’s been done. It’s like when a senator switches parties; if it’s to the party one belongs to they are an example of courage, if it’s the other party they’re a dirty backstabbing traitor…
I’ve heard some panicky Democrats now saying that there should be legislations to force a governor to pick someone of the same party. This is a pointless idea. He or she could always just pick someone who is “officially” a member of the opposition but who will promptly switch parties once they get in.
I guess the only danger in allowing a special election immediately upon the lawmaker leaving the Senate is that it might allow some really subpar people to slip in and be almost entirely in favor of the very wealthy or a celebrity. Would we instead go for a regular length election, with a nomination election and a final election? In that case the Republicans would at the very least share power (though in reality they have control in the case of a 50/50 tie)and we would have the greatest, most expensive single sentorial election in history. One for the books.
Interestingly, even if this causes the senate to flip, it might be a temporary situation–I know at least one Republican senator in a state with a Democratic governor has been diagnosed with leukemia. With a Senate so closely divided and so many members of advanced age and suspect health this could be an ongoing thing.
“This is the type of situation that causes new legislation to be drafted, depending on how things turn out.”
Maybe, but this isn’t anything new. This has happened several times over the last few decades. We had one in VA (I want to say in the late 1950’s) and there was one like this in this guy’s state. There’s never any real outrage and there are always “bigger” issues to deal with.
However, I’m not sure if any of the other times would have thrown the power balance to the other side. This, along with the general climate in politics today, could be the one that causes the big blow up.
Johnson is expected to recover, although a brain specialist was cited saying Johnson won’t be in the clear until he wakes and can answer questions.
Maybe, but this isn’t anything new.
Oh, I know.
However, I’m not sure anybody could say that the stakes have ever been a high with such a possible appointment, when the Senate is 51-49 in favor of Dems, and there’s no hope of true unity between the two parties in sight.
Squirrel fossils compete with dinosaur and bird fossils in determining the first gliding animal: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/12/14/gliding.mammal.ap
Gliding gave squirrels an evolutionary advantage in escaping moose trying to pull rabbits out of their hats.
So long as Senator Johnson does not pass away, the Senate will remain in Democratic hands.
He does not need to be there for every vote. The Governor can’t remove a Senator because he think’s he is too sick to serve. Only the sitting Senator can do that. The Democrats would still have a 50-49 hold keeping the V.P. from breaking a tie.
Besides that, all politics aside, I think he’ll pull through. I’ll be praying for him.
–Captain Naraht
Well there’s also the possibility that he could resign–it would hurt the Democrats but it would help his state. Tough choice, though in these divisive times I can’t blame him for not wanting to take the heat. Make no mistake, if he resigns he will be pilloried.
The winner take all nature of the senate will encourage these kinds of things but it’s hard to see how this could be easily resolved. The hardcore base of both parties would freak out if any attempt at compromise was launched.
PAD wrote: “Do you have a problem with quality over quantity?”
Not at all. But unfortunately, our two-party political system often makes quality irrelevant in the candidate selection and support process, in my opinion.
“Posted by R. Maheras at December 15, 2006 01:18 AM
PAD wrote: “Do you have a problem with quality over quantity?”
Not at all. But unfortunately, our two-party political system often makes quality irrelevant in the candidate selection and support process, in my opinion.”
Which is why you need a process to weed out the bad apples that do get through…
Cheers
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 15, 2006 06:14 AM
Which is why you need a process to weed out the bad apples that do get through…
We do. We hold regular elections.
So people recovering from surgery would do their employers a favor by resigning from their jobs? Did Ðìçk Cheney quit his job after each of his 4 heart attacks?
Preserving the democratic majority in the senate is not a casual service to his state. The filibuster preventing the Civil Rights Act from reaching the senate floor was broken by a senator who had to be wheeled in and indicated his vote with the direction of his look. South Dakota republicans can put up their own version of the freedom clock in the meantime.
I guess this is what Nixon had in mind when he said, “When the President does it, that means that it’s not illegal.”
Assuming it is better to have two Senators than just one, it would benefit his state if he were to resign–assuming he is so incapacitated that recovery is unlikely, which is not the same as the examples you mentioned.
Personally, I’d rather have him healthy and the senate remain in the hands of the Democrats. It’s the only decent thing to hope for. If one comes to the point where you find yourself wishing death or illness on people just for their politics it may be time to seek help.
“Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 15, 2006 06:14 AM
Which is why you need a process to weed out the bad apples that do get through…
Posted by Bill Myers at December 15, 2006 07:44 AM
We do. We hold regular elections.”
OK.. I apparently should have said: You need a process to weed out the bad apples that do get through, as they are identified, rather than have to wait for the next election.
Which was in response to a comment relating to quality vs quantity issues not being addressed by the support and selection processes.
Cheers.
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 15, 2006 12:23 PM
OK.. I apparently should have said: You need a process to weed out the bad apples that do get through, as they are identified, rather than have to wait for the next election.
But we have that covered as well. Members of the executive and judiciary branches of the U.S. Government can be impeached and subsequently removed from office. Members of Congress can be, and have been, expelled.
Impeachment and expulsion happen rarely, which is as it should be. Removing someone from office before the end of their term is tantamount to undoing an election, which should always be a last resort.
Yes, assuming Johnson is too incapacitated is exactly what you are doing. You gave no exception to “[Johnson resigning] would hurt the Democrats but it would help his state.”
Did you ever say South Carolina was missing a senator because Strom Thurmond could not stand on his own and stopped remembering names? Or is a republican swallowing his oatmeal only matched by a democrat swimming the English Channel in your fantasy world?
To impeachment a president is to charge him with a crime. Clinton was impeached — and was not removed from office.
You seem to think you are entitled to your own facts.
Here is what I wrote: “Members of the executive and judiciary branches of the U.S. Government can be impeached and subsequently removed from office.”
I used the conjunction “and” to make it clear that impeachment and removal from office were separate but related acts.