If we hired him, why can't we fire him?

[kentuck]

If, for nothing else, of doing a lousy job? If he worked at any corporation in America, do you think he would still be in his position? What part of the Constitution says once we put him in his position, he must stay there until the 4 years is up? Obviously, he has lost the confidence of the people. Few expect things to get better in the remaining two years. Many, perhaps most, expect things to get worse. With that knowledge, we have to keep him on the job? It doesn't make sense...

[aquart]

1. We can. Get the votes.

[Ravenseye]

2. Some call it a major flaw in our constitution

I actually had this discussion with someone else recently. The lack of an effective recall from the constitution.

Unfortunately that's the way the cookie crumbles. Impeachment and Conviction is the only way he could be removed forcibly from office, legally, and that is a year long process which probably wouldn't succeed.

So yeah. We're stuck with him. A major failing of our constitution.

[kentuck]

4. With that said, should our reach extend our grasp?

Simply because we do not have the votes, we should not even reach?

[Ravenseye]

8. What would it accomplish?

What would be better for the country over the next two years? Nothing but legal battles trying to impeach Bush, just to have Cheney replace him? Or, using the majorities in the House and Senate to put a check on what the Executive branch can do in the next couple of years, and even get some good legislation passed.

Sure it'd be better if we could have a recall election and call for new elections today, but we just don't have a system like that. Reaching for something we can't reach instead of reaching for something we can, just because i'ts something we can't have, but want, is pointless.

[HughBeaumont]

9. It's like exchanging Idi Amin for Pol Pot.

Either way, we're screwn until 1.20.09.

This cannot go on, however. His power HAS to be quelled somehow.

[Ravenseye]

11. It can be quelled via congress

at least to a good degree.

[kentuck]

10. Can we not walk and chew gum at the same time..??

"Nothing but legal battles trying to impeach Bush, just to have Cheney replace him?" Do you mean that nothing else can get done if we pursue this? What would that have to do with getting "some good legislation" passed?

What would it accomplish? It might stop a war in Iran, for starters? It might stop a worldwide conflagration? It might save thousands of American and Iraqi lives? Would that not make it worthwhile?

[Ravenseye]

13. No we probably can't

Very little would get done if we pursued impeachment. Every second of impeachment proceedings would take time away from other measures. It would also polarize the congress even more, and make the republicans so defensive that they would fillibuster and delay every possible measure we'd try to pass. It would be a nightmare.

Then after at least a year of that, if we were even successfull, which we probably wouldn't as we don't have the votes in the Senate, Cheney would be President. Unless we want to double up and impeach him at the same time, which would backfire on the party and make it look just plain like an attempted coup and would damage or destroy the Democratic party for a long time, possibly forever.

So if we just did it, and were succesfull and had Cheney, how would that stop a war with Iran or a worldwide conflagration or save Iraqi lives? It wouldn't.

It's better to spend the time trying to move the country positively for a change via congress, and put the reigns on Bushco. While it's possible to walk and chew gum at the same time, that doesn't mean that just because you CAN walk and chew gum at the same time, doesn't make it a good idea.

[kentuck]

14. And leave the madman to his vices?

After all, there's nothing we can do... OK...

[Ravenseye]

15. At this point I just think it's too late

If we had taken control in 2004 it would have been an option on the table. Now the only thing we can do, to prevent what you're talking about, is not only essentially impossible, but even with success would be destructive, possibly moreso than doing nothing.

Now that we control the pocketbook, his penchant for invading small islamic countries is probably pretty much curtailed anyway.

[bdamomma]

17. John Dean was on the other nite with Keith Olbermann

and he said that there are many groups out there trying to initiate impeachment, he said forget it, he said start with a Cabinet member and then the trail might end up pointing to Bush and Cheney, makes sense, but the only way is countless investigations to get these guys. It is really frustrating, or I am just waiting for someone to declare Bush a psychotic person who needs to resign.

[Ravenseye]

21. Dean's right

The only way to truly nail Bush is to work up. Putting Bush up for Impeachment now would be fruitless and only harm the Democratic party. Starting lower, investigating the bottom up, could expose enough corruption, crimes, and even treason, to warrant a quicker impeachment and trial. As it stands though to go after Bush now is a waste of time.

[kentuck]

22. Start with Libby and Cheney?

Libby's already on the stove...

[bdamomma]

23. now what is happening with that in regards to Cheney

having to testify, is my information correct?

[Ravenseye]

26. I think even lower

Sub-cabinet level, and follow the breadcrumbs.

[JacksonWest]

28. It's not a major failing. It provides stability.

Typically, the opposition party takes over congress during the course of the presidency. So, what's good for the goose is good for the gander... A democratic president and a republican congress...not good. Clinton would have been recalled in 1995. If you want to have elections every two years, that would require an Amendment and a lot of aspirin. As it stands, impeachment is a viable option. Ask Clinton.

Even if there was a mechanism in place for his own party to oust him-it's no guarantee that they would.

[Waya]

3. We don't have to......

...but getting Congress to Impeach (fire) him is another matter altogether.
I'm reminded of pictures from the Ukraine where people (hundreds of thousands if not millions) stood in front of, I think it was the Presidential Building or some such place for weeks in order to force the Government into compliance with their wishes.
Maybe this is called for here. Imagine a million people camping out in front of the White House or the Capitol for weeks - pressing the new Congress to do its job. It might work.

[sabbat hunter]

12. we dont have mob rule

in the USA we are not mob ruled. imagine if back in 1995 or so if a million right wing fundamentists camped outside the white house calling for Clinton's ouster. would you have wanted that?


our system has worked pretty damn good for 220 years. let it continue to work.

[Waya]

31. It's not mob rule......

....it would be our right. The system has not worked in 6 years. Our Constitution has been butchered, the Bill of Rights has been axed by the very person who has been entrusted with upholding, protecting and defending it. The system doesn't work - not anymore.

[sabbat hunter]

33. it still works

the very fact tht the democratic party took control of the house and senate shows that the system still indeed does work.

[bdamomma]

19. I only wish that this would happen, and they are a threat to

to the citizens of the US wouldn't you make the choice of ousting this regime. The right to defend the US against foreign and DOMENSTIC enemies, this is stated in the Constitution.

[donheld]

5. Who hired whom?

It wasn't me.

[Waya]

6. Wasn't me either......

...but regardless of who did the 'hiring' - we all have suffered under this madman for the last 6 years. So we all have a stake in throwing him out of the "People's House" whether we had a hand in installing him there or not.

[kentuck]

7. No, but unfortunately we are stuck with him...

I guess? :shrug: No matter if he blows up the world. No matter if he is mentally unstable and a megalomaniac. No matter what, we have to keep him for two more years. Sad.

[bullimiami]

16. we didnt hire him.

[bdamomma]

18. just a question to anyone

with all these firings of these Generals could these Generals and/or the military arrest Bush?

[hack89]

20. No ...

it is not a power given to them by the constitution. The military is firmly under civilian control as it should be.

[bdamomma]

24. too bad, geez, nothing like grasping for straws, but *

must be dethroned!

[hack89]

27. I am hard pressed to recall a military coup that ever ..

led to more democracy. Just wait 2 years and he will be gone.

[spanone]

25. If he worked in corporate America they'd be giving him a 100 million dollar a year bonus.

just for his minor fuckups.

[paulk]

29. the key word is "we"

It was mostly Republcans and Independents who "hired" him, and any move to fire him that's going to succeed needs to come from that same group as well.

First, the investigations.

[Orsino]

30. We were just one interested party.

Small p, that is. We got to vote for him only after a series of negotiations by very rich and very white old men supported his candidacy, and after voters of his own (big p) party vetted him and the Secretaries of State and the Electoral College verified his win. There was even input from a Supreme court Justice, who administered the oath of office. Legally, only Congress can fire him, and only after enough of them become convinced that it is desirable and/or safe to do so.

Yes, he's completely screwed the pooch, but he has one of the most secure jobs in the world, wielding enormous authority for a limited (thank the Goddess) term. We The People were hasty and ill-informed to trust him in this office, but are legally required to wait for relief.

[Mikey929]

32. Come on Now

Is that what you really want in our government? Every time a president gets unpopular, we just kick him out and put someone new in? Where would that end? What if Clinton could have just been tossed out after the Monica story broke? Would you support that?

One of this country's great hallmarks is the orderly transfer of power. It is a treasure. We don't want to implement drastic measures just to address one president.

There's an election and we live by it until the next time, short of impeachment.