Reply #14: So we wait til Pelosi or somebody from OUR side gets the gavel [View All]

[calimary]

after November, when we've taken back the House.

Having cheney ascend to the Oval Office after bush doesn't bother me at all. And CERTAINLY not enough to make me balk at putting bush through an IMPEACHMENT!!! CERTAINLY NOT!!!

It absolutely, positively, utterly, and undeniably HAS to be done. There HAS to be accountability. America, at large, and everyone in his party and among his apologists and excuse-makers and handwriters HAS to be forced to face the idea that our "leaders" ARE INDEED accountable for their actions and their misdeeds. You don't just have ONE "accountability moment" every four years, if you're president. If YOU are on the public's tab, if the taxpayers are paying YOUR salary, every moment you draw breath in those offices is a moment of accountability. You are accountable for EVERYTHING you do, EVERYTHING you say, EVERY move you make on the public's dime. EVERY scrap of it. To let this bastard skate, cheney or no cheney, is unconstitutional, un-American, unpatriotic, unlawful, unreasonable, and illegitimate. It's a frickin' SIN. The more important overriding point is to demonstrate to everyone in this country that you do NOT commit this level of lawbreaking and flouting the Constitution you SWORE to preserve, protect and defend, without suffering consequences. THERE ARE NO HEREDITARY KINGS in America. The good judge in Detroit just pointed that out. That's something far too many people in this country, at every level, in and out of government, have forgotten or ignored. And it needs to be brought back out to the fore again, and FACED. If not, the lessons we are, in fact, teaching to ourselves, our reps, our countrymen/women and our kids, are lessons I don't think we'd be proud of, or to which we'd want our names attached. If Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine or Sam Addams or George Washington or Ben Franklin were standing there to meet us at the Pearly Gates, I don't think we'd be able to face them with clean consciences if we let this bastard skate.

Furthermore, having cheney ascend to the presidency would imply that bush would NOT ONLY have been IMPEACHED, but then would have been convicted in the subsequent IMPEACHMENT TRIAL in the Senate - which would mean removal from office. Frankly, if we take back the House of Reps and NOT also the Senate, I don't think we'll be successful in getting that far. But so be it.

I'd be happy with it going even just that far. I'd be DELIGHTED, as a matter of fact. It might be the best of all worlds.

Okay, fine, so bush is IMPEACHED but remains in office. Nothing can remove that IMPEACHMENT mark from his record in history. Just as Clinton is also saddled with that, even while coming more and more to be widely regarded as a great president, bush will have that mark on his record forever. That's almost good enough for me. It's something he'll be forced to wear like a scarlet letter, for the rest of his life, especially when there will still be as many of us reminding him and his friends of that - as there are hounding Clinton to this day. I, in fact, would like to be one of those relentless hounders, since I believe in the tit-for-tat, taste-of-their-own-medicine strategy of political warfare with opponents of his ilk. The overall damage will be done bloodlessly, and would prevent all other complications we don't want, would rather not deal with, and whose ultimate results we can't predict or control.

And, okay, fine, bush surviving would mean cheney's still here. But he'd be boxed in, either way. Strategically, he's in the hot seat more and more, anyway. But, simply because any and all coverage of a bush impeachment trial would be wall-to-wall, 24/7, so vast and many-tentacled, it would invite lots of companion coverage and discussion of a bush removal and cheney ascension and What It All Means. There'd be political turmoil on top of political turmoil - the bush predicament by itself and the bush predicament as it relates to dick cheney. There might even be some Democrats in the Senate who would use this reason - "well, it means we'd have pResident cheney" as a rationale for a vote against a conviction of bush in a Senate trial on the articles of IMPEACHMENT sent to the Senate by the House. I mean, this certainly is a powerful enough concern to dominate the reasoning of a lot of informed, thoughtful DUers even just here! I suspect a vote against conviction is what would happen, especially if the GOP retains control in the Senate. Even if it doesn't, a Democratic majority wouldn't be a large one (we have to win more than six seats - only a few of those considered definitely winnable). A narrow Dem majority probably wouldn't have much of a backbone and would be busy trying to figure out a way to "work together with" the recently shamed and voter-repudiated republi-CONS. And considering the personalities and psyches of many possible GOP survivors, it's just as likely that those same recently shamed and voter-repudiated republi-CONS may be more interested in revenge and how soon they can screw the Democratic victors out of their hard-won victory. I mean, how many of these guys do you REALLY expect to be good losers? How many more Sore Losermans do we have in there? Probably a few, and maybe more than a few. I'd expect as many, if not more, if they lose the Senate, to be in an angry mood, not a mood to accept the change with dignity and really try to learn and grow from it. I doubt they'd be in a mood to "work together with" our new majority, anyway.

If cheney DOES inherit the presidency, he inherits all the problems from a position of discomfort. He will be out of his comfort zone. The place that sneak-ass old shit likes best is in the shadows, behind the curtains, where nobody can see what he's up to, and people are mostly focused on bush and all his fuck-ups so they don't always get around to talking about him, anyway. He prefers NOT being on center stage in the heat of the spotlight. This is precisely where ascending to the presidency would stick him. And he'd get a lot more of the scrutiny he hates. On top of that, the psychological and painfully public blow of a bush IMPEACHMENT/conviction/removal would be emotionally debilitating for the republi-CONS. Completely devastating. You wanna talk about a party in chaos? OY! THAT would be a huge part of the overall news coverage. It would throw them so off their guard they'd be either floundering and thrashing and doing so much damage as they could just to show us all where we can stick it for daring to throw them out of power, or they could huddle up in useless little lumps and cry in their beer until the next presidential election. At any rate, I think it'd be deliciously sweet revenge to put this shadow-fiend out in the harsh lights where he least wants to be.

I doubt it'll get this far. I think bush will survive. But I think he'll survive wounded - with an IMPEACHMENT on his record. Even that is enough to demoralize the GOP. They've been strutting around like cocky bullies for too many years now, and how's it working out for ya, America? Perhaps a little mortification of this troublesome crowd is good for the soul.

I just think it's absolutely essential that bush be held accountable - to this extreme. It's come to that - mainly because he's forced the issue. He's pushed it here by flatly and arrogantly pushing it here by his greedy,illegal, and unconstitutional grabs for power. So extreme responses such as IMPEACHMENT in the House of Reps are a MOST worthy pursuit.

And if, in either way, we have a republi-CON party thoroughly disgraced and demoralized, so much the better for our candidate in '08, and a wholesale rehabilitation of this government gone so badly and tragically off-course.

Shit - sorry this is so long. I guess I just get carried away... Love you guys!