On Mar 27, 11:11 am, "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> Why Dick and Nancy Will Never be President via Impeachment
>
> By Dave Lindorff
> Created Mar 26 2007 - 8:36am
>
> One argument I hear over and over when I talk about the need to impeach
> President Bush for high crimes against the Constitution is that it can
never
> happen because "then we'd have Dick Cheney for president."
>
> A second argument is that impeachment could never happen because even if
> Bush and Cheney were removed, it would mean Nancy Pelosi would become
> president, and Republicans would never allow this to happen.
>
> Some who raise these issues may be genuinely horrified at the prospect
of a
> Cheney presidency (though we really already have that), and may also be
> genuine in thinking that there could never be an impeachement that would
> change control of the White House from one party to the other. But I get
the
> feeling that many of those who raise these objections to impeachment
simply
> don't want to deal with impeaching the president. Certainly the Cheney
> canard has been quietly raised by many in the Democratic leadership to
> explain their shameful inaction in defense of the Constitution in the
face
> of Bush's many grave crimes and abuses of power.
>
> So let me knock these two bogus concerns down once and for all.
>
> First Cheney. There is a precedent here. Richard Nixon, as he faced
> impeachment, also had what many said was a kind of impeachment
insurance:
> Spiro Agnew. Agnew was in some ways like Cheney--a hard-right,
> money-grubbing, small-minded proto-fascist. He was also different in
that
> Cheney is embedded in the highest reaches of the corporate petro-war
> machine, while Agnew was a political light-weight. Cheney also seems to
have
> a Machevellian cleverness that Agnew never had. That said, both have in
> common that they are profoundly disliked by the vast majority of
> Americans--Cheney even more so than Agnew, who at least had a robust
> following among the yahoo, know-nothing crowd (that's pre-Yahoo yahoo
> usage).
>
> In any event, when it became clear that Nixon was going to go down,
> Republican Party leaders looked aghast at the prospect of facing the
voters
> with Agnew as the face of the Republican Party. They found a way out, by
> having the Justice Department indict Agnew on bribery charges. He was
gone
> in a flash, and thus they were able, with Democratic Congressional
support,
> to put a safe, uncontroversial place-holder into the vice president's
> office, Gerald Ford, who was at the time the minority leader of the
House.
> It made a certain sense given that had Republicans been in control of
the
> House, Ford would have been the next in line for the presidency.
>
> If impeachment hearings made it clear that Bush's days in office were
> numbered, as I believe would certainly be the case, Republicans would be
at
> least as concerned about being stuck with Cheney as their party leader
> heading into 2008 as their forebears were of having Agnew in that
position.
> I have no doubt but that they would push him or threaten him or drive
him
> out of office in the same way that they eliminated Agnew. They'd have
> several ways to do that. Cheney, who has myriad health problems,
including a
> bionic heart and thrombosis, could simply push a little emergency escape
> button on his life-support system and claim he was having some heart
> problems and had to leave for health reasons. If he didn't do that,
there is
> no doubt a file lodged in the FBI somewhere with enough serious dirt on
> Cheney's financial chicanery to pull him down with an indictment. He
knows
> that, and so would almost certainly cut a deal that would allow him to
skate
> away free. In any event, he'd be gone.
>
> In the unlikely event that he chose to ignore the pressure, and managed
to
> intimidate his party colleagues and the attorney general's office into
not
> indicting him, the other problem for Cheney is that he is so intricately
> involved in all of Bush's impeachable offenses that he would surely be
> impeached along with the president or more likely indicted by a special
> prosecutor long before the president resigned or was thrown out of
office.
>
> As for Pelosi becoming president, I think it is impossible for two
reasons.
> Firstly, if Democrats ever develop the courage and sense of principle to
> initiate impeachment hearings into Bush's crimes, they, like their
> predecessors in 1974, will want to gain at least some Republican
backing,
> and they could never do this if Republicans thought they might be
handing
> the White House over early to them. Clearly they would want to make it
plain
> that they had no intention of installing Pelosi in the White House via
> impeachment. I suspect that the same kind of arrangement would be made
in
> Bush's case as was made in Nixon's: Republicans would be able to pick an
> uncontroversial, lackluster replacement for Cheney--probably someone
like
> House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH)--to take over from Cheney.
> (Boehner is in many ways a Gerald Ford clone--undistinguished
politically
> and intellectually, and unlikely to win should he run for president on
his
> own right. There is also the delightful way that his official bio is so
> quick to explain that his name is pronounced "Bay-nor," and not the way
one
> might expect it to be pronounced, which would be certain to make him the
> butt of late-night TV jokes the same way Ford was.)
>
> The main thing is that it is simply not correct that the fear of a
Cheney or
> a Pelosi presidency provides Bush with some kind of insurance against
> impeachment.
>
> The only insurance Bush has against the impeachment he so richly
deserves,
> and that a majority of Americans devoutly wish to see him receive, is a
> craven Democratic Party leadership, which because of a profound lack of
> principle, an excess of self-interested political calculation, and an
> astonishing misreading of the popular will, is going to any lengths to
avoid
> doing what the Constitution demands it to do: impeach a president who
poses
> a clear and present danger to the survival of Constitutional government
and
> the rule of law in America.
> _______
>
> --
> NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
> always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
> available to advance understanding of
> political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice
issues. I
> believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
> provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
> Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
>
> "A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over,
their
> spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore
their
> government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we
are
> suffering deeply in spirit,
> and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous
public
> debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
> patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of
winning
> back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles
are at
> stake."
> -Thomas Jefferson
>Thank heavens for small favors.
|
