A poll for those who so strongly push for impeachment

[Brazenly Liberal]

Poll question: A poll for those who so strongly push for impeachment

Which of these people do you think would be a fine president? This is the line of succession. Remember, if you see one who isn't too bad, ALL the guys/gals ahead of him have to be successfully impeached. One loss along the way and Dennis Hastert could be sullying the Oval Office.

Extra points for anyone who can come up with impeachment charges for all of them, thus resulting in - I can only guess - my dog being sworn in.

The following are also in line, but didn't fit on a 10-choice poll:
-- Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez (ineligible - was born in Cuba)
-- Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao (ineligible - born in Taiwan)
10 Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt
11 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson
12 Secretary of Transportation Norman Yoshio Mineta
13 Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman
14 Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings
15 Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson
16 Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff (In late July 2005, the Senate passed a bill moving the Homeland Security secretary to number 8 on the list. The bill is awaiting House approval.)

[Faygo Kid]

1. Your dog is the best choice.

What, we are not supposed to stand up for the rule of law and the Constitution because succession is not what we may hope? Don't think so.

[Brazenly Liberal]

9. Didn't say that.

I think standing up for the rule of law and the Constitution is a fine thing. I'm just curious as to which - if any - of these people would be considered an improvement.

I do agree that my dog is the best choice. He'd never send people to fight in a trumped up war when they could be better occupied throwing the ball.

[reichstag911]

20. Your dog throws?!? n/t

[Brazenly Liberal]

26. Huh?

Does he throw? Well, he throws up. Of course he does. He's a dog and that's one of their favorite hobbies.

But no, he doesn't throw the ball. He wouldn't send people to fight a trumped up war because they (meaning the people) would be spending their time better if they threw the ball for him. His needs - and his politics - are simple that way.

[MockSwede]

29. Good Dog

Keeps his master in line.

[atommom]

59. My dog throws his toys all the time. Tosses the frisbee too.

And I'd say either one of these fine animals would be a better choice than what we have now...

[TankLV]

63. I vote for your dog too.

Let me go over the list again.

I don't see the DEMOCRATIC speaker of the house - when the dems retake the house in November.

That's my choice.

Sorry, NO repuke will ever get my choice.

But let's not stop that from impeaching as many of them as we can!

For that I'd TEMPORARILY settly for goal one: GET bunkerboy FIRST. If that means Cheney for the time being until we can TRY HIS ASS, then so be it.

[Kare]

11. my dog is more patriotic than his dog!

Just had to have some kind of debate :)

[Brazenly Liberal]

13. Hey!

My dog can kick your dog's ass while holding a flag in his forepaw!

[BrklynLiberal]

2. We are screwed.

[oldtime dfl_er]

3. er..is it too late to

impeach Cheney, get bushboy to appoint McCain as the new veep, and then impeach bush? I could live with mccain for a year or two if I had to.

http://www.cafepress.com/scarebaby/1097640

[MockSwede]

30. Good Idea

That's just like Agnew and Rockefeller with Nixon, but then Nixon resigned and pulled in Ford, so Rocky stayed VEEP.

[billybob537]

4. Why would you want to impeach him

He's a much better Pinata than a president.

[Der Blaue Engel]

5. They must all be held accountable

Whether there is a suitable successor is not the issue. Crimes must be dealt with. Do you seriously think we're better off with the chimp? The public disgrace will damage the Republican party, no matter who gets to take the reins.

[bemildred]

6. Second that. nt

[Brazenly Liberal]

12. No

I don't seriously think we're better off with the chimp. I'm not arguing against impeachment, just wondering if people see a candidate in the list who doesn't make them break out in hives. I'm still rooting for my dog.

[MADem]

7. Hold off until the next Congress is seated

And then, MADAME SPEAKER, Nancy Pelosi, can take the reins after Cheney resigns, Monkey pardons him, and either resigns himself or is impeached before he can name a VEEP.

[Brazenly Liberal]

19. I think we have the beginnings of a great plan here.....

Let's see....

Bush goes hunting with Cheney in Mid November. Cheney, distraught over losing both houses, is an even worse shot than usual. He hears a rustling in the bushes, turns and shoots. Bush falls. Cheney, seeing what he's done, has a heart attack. HELLOOOOO, MADAME PRESIDENT!

[MADem]

32. You must wait until the next Congress is seated

The old one is still lame-duck until Jan...can't have Hastert taking the job!!!!

[Brazenly Liberal]

36. YIKES! Thanks!

Egad! What a thought. You are right - late January is better.

[MADem]

38. Then, since there would be no VP, she gets to pick one

My VP vote is for JOHN CONYERS.

Reasoning--both are STAND UP types; both know how to work the room and achieve consensus. Both are extraordinarily articulate, sharp, and politically savvy. Both have an enormous amount of EXPERIENCE.

Last but not least, between Pelosi and Conyers, we'd finally bust through that race and gender glass ceiling bullshit. It would henceforth be a non-issue.

[Brazenly Liberal]

40. AND.........

it would make all the Freak Republic types stroke out on the spot. A win-win situation! Good choice!

[MADem]

41. Can you imagine the rabid, mad-dog, vein-popping, pant-pooping

barking mad FROTHING that would go on! They'd probably pound their keyboards to death...it would be a good time to invest in a keyboard company, they'd probably ruin so many!

The idea of them with their skivvies in a knot is a rather cheery concept!

[Brazenly Liberal]

43. Just one question, though.

"Can you imagine the rabid, mad-dog, vein-popping, pant-pooping barking mad FROTHING that would go on!"

Do you really think it would be business as usual? No discernible change in their demeanor at all?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I'd pay to see it, though. I've only been over there a couple of times. It was enough. But when the Dems take Congress, I'm going back. Oh, yes, indeedy, I want to see with my own eyeballs the gnashing of teeth and tearing of hair, and - most and best of all - all the empty vows to emigrate to whatever country is willing to take them. Hell, I'll help 'em pack.

[TankLV]

64. The whore media probably has all their whores on that project RIGHT NOW.

Gearing up the hate machine for the BIG TIME.

I bet they even have snappy logos ready too!

[papau]

22. I agree - and the Speaker need not be a Congressperson - Pres Gore?

:-)

[MADem]

31. The Speaker is the leader of the Majority Party in the House

That would be Nancy Pelosi, unless she steps aside. Gore would have to run for Congress, for the House, which is "lower" in political terms than the Senate, and then be elected Majority Leader.

[papau]

50. I believe the members of the House can elect anyone they choose as the

speaker! :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

The Speaker is elected by the House of Representatives, and is its highest-ranking officer. Although it is not a Constitutional requirement, as a practical matter the Speakership always belongs to the majority party, and is that party's leader, outranking the House Majority Leader. Likewise, there is no Constitutional requirement that the Speaker even be an elected representative in the Congress.

[MADem]

51. Of course, but right now, Nancy is the minority leader

She's quite effective, so unless she resigns the leadership, it's likely she'll remain in the job. It would be incredibly unlikely that the House Dems choose someone outside their membership, and if they did, there would probably be an enormous amount of outrage over it that could result in a Constitutional amendment further down the line. Also, in order for Gore, or anyone else, to get the nod, they'd have to elect him as Speaker ahead of impeachment, or she'd have to resign just before the chain of succession is activated by a conviction in the Senate to vote him in. For two years of Presidential leadership, I'd be quite happy with her in the White House. She has a good head on her shoulders.

[papau]

54. I agree Nancy would do fine- but I do like the idea of a in your face Gore

or either Clinton or Teddy K or Barney F - all those that the media would try to kill in an election getting in via this procedure.

[Radical Activist]

45. We were told to do that last time.

And what do you know...avoiding the issues didn't result in a Democratic takeover.

[MADem]

47. You can't Diebold outside the margins of error

They were able to cheat inside the margins. Even with the largest Faux like margins, the preference skews Democratic this time around, and in many contests, DECISIVELY so. It will be much harder to cheat, and if they try it, there will be trouble. Big trouble, I'd wager.

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. Remember, the order of succession can very easily be changed

Because it is based on office, not person. If impeachment proceedings were initiated against Shrub and Dicky, no reason why

1) Rumsfeld resigns as Sec. of Def.
2) A Republican member of the House resigns, allowing the state governor to appoint a replacement until the next election.
3) The governor appoints Rheummy to finish the term.
4) The Republican House unanimously elects Rheummy as Speaker
5) President Rheummy appoints Jeb Bush as Vice President.

[MADem]

33. There's a residency requirement, need to determine where DR says

he's living. I think he has a house in WY, and I know he has a house in MD. But the problem there is that if a House person resigns, the governor does NOT appoint a replacement. He has to call for an election, and DR would have to actually RUN for the job. There's a minimum 36 day delay between the resignation and the election. Too hard...!

Gov. Perry has said if DeLay does not resign today, he isn't calling for a special election. The November winner will be seated. Fine with me!

[ABaker]

58. Sorry to bust your theory, but

In the early 70's Congress passed a law saying relatives of a president by either blood or marriage can not be Vice President or Cabinet Secretary.

[PATRICK]

10. I picked Johanns

because the unknown quantity would have to be an unknown Bush crony or worse. Too chancey. So I figure by the time we peel down to Johanns, who probably is also corrupt, he can be intimidated into behaving himself, maybe locking himself up in the WH closet.

P.S. Is your dog Republican?

[Brazenly Liberal]

16. Is my dog a Republican? IS MY DOG A REPUBLICAN??????

Them's fightin' words. Meet me outside. Bring your dog.

[PATRICK]

52. Overcaution

made me insensitive, sorry. My own dog died shortly after the Iraq War started. We have borrowed the names yellow dog, blue dog, etc. but nothing is as faithful as a dog dog.

Can Bush's dog succeed him?

[Brazenly Liberal]

53. I'm sorry to hear that

No smartassing around, I really am. We have two dogs now. One is getting on. He's 14 years old, arthritic, half blind, half deaf, and half toothless. It's sad to see him decline. But the vet says he still has a good quality of life and he still gets a certain amount of joy out of bossing the younger one around. His time isn't too far off, though, and we'll miss him terribly

[TankLV]

65. Hey MY dog will LICK YOUR DOG'S FACE!

He's a GOOD golden retriever!

[MissWaverly]

14. Al Gore

I think that it's coming, by now, even the most rabid republican realizes that the country
has benn trashed under the leadership of GWB, so every one with dirt on * will open the floodgates, take your pick 9-11, election 2000, * v Gore, NSA, outing a CIA agent, Iraq
War, missing money, Katrina, it will not stop but will become a Niagra sweeping away
the present leadership.

[longship]

15. Nancy Pelosi

Not on the poll.

[yngliberal]

17. Mineta...He's a Democrat...n/t

[Brazenly Liberal]

42. Hey! You! I've got one thing to say to that suggestion.

Welcome to DU! :toast:

[kenny blankenship]

18. Maybe you missed the point?

The decision to impeach isn't taken because you think you'd like to have someone else in the job (President, VP, or whichever executive branch official the case may be) but because the current job holder has done some serious wrong ("high crimes and misdemeanors" in office).

[bee]

23. my feelings as well. n/t

[Brazenly Liberal]

24. No, I think you missed the point.

I wasn't arguing against impeachment. I have never argued against impeachment. I just assumed people who are vehemently promoting it would have given this some thought and I was curious as to who in the line - if anyone - would be considered an improvement by those who have given it much thought.

[kenny blankenship]

35. Pointless question then. There is an order of succession fixed by law

and to whimsically change it to arrive at a particular outcome that suits you (let's have this person, not that person) would be to engage in the same arbitrary abuses of power that Bush should be jailed for. You don't impeach and remove a President, or whomever, to get what you "consider an improvement" in the person holding the job. You don't arrest and try a murderer because you think you know someone whom you'd prefer to buy and move into his house. Who comes next is immaterial to the question. The President is either guilty of impeachable offenses and deserving of a Senate trial, or not. On the removal of the President, the office goes to the next eligible government officer as set by the Presidential Succession Act. I don't see much to be curious about.

[Brazenly Liberal]

39. You're still missing the point

Kenny, you're reading waaaaaaaaaay too much into this. Things I never said, for instance.

I never suggested changing the order of succession. In fact, I alluded to the fact that everyone ahead of the one you like would have to impeached, too.

Nor did I say or imply that the reason for impeachment is to get someone you consider an improvement. I merely wondered if there was someone who would be considered an improvement.

As to whether or not there is something to be curious about, I'd say that's up to the person being curious.

[TankLV]

66. Unfortunately, true.

sigh...

[hyphenate]

21. Damned good thing

that Gale Norton is gone, too, huh?

I can't think of any redeeming factors for any one of these people. I suppose the Secretary of Agriculture, because I don't know him, but that's because I DON'T know him!

[wobblie]

25. impeachment

We only need to impeach Bush and Cheney. To impeach we will need a majority in the House of Reps. which means there will be a new speaker, President Nancy Pelosi anyone?

[Brazenly Liberal]

28. Hey! You!

Welcome to DU. :toast:

I'm kinda sorta new myself. Great crowd here. Very passionate and amazingly well-informed.

edited to fix smilie (I hope)

[newyawker99]

62. Hi wobblie!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[baldguy]

27. Can we ask Canada to invade us?

[Kerry fan]

34. Gore won the election in 2000.

Kerry won the election in 2004.

Can't we overturn both those election "results" and make Gore president and Kerry vice president?

I would prefer Kerry as president but I will gladly settle for Gore/Kerry.

Seems like the perfect solution.

[espera17]

61. how did kerry win the election?

he lost both the EV race and the popular vote

[TankLV]

67. Umm - CHEATING - would be my first thought. It's ILLEGAL.

Maybe a precedent can be set.

It's a dream I have.

But that's just me.

[kay1864]

37. Nancy Pelosi!

Who will be,

(if we take the House in November)

the Speaker of the House, and

(if we impeach and convict both Chimpy and Cranky)

President Pelosi. Has a nice ring to it.

No lie. 'twould be automatic.


From a post in another thread:

From Wikipedia:

She has been widely praised by liberals for criticism of steps taken by the George W. Bush administration in the years since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. She was a member of the Progressive Caucus until she became the party leader, when she adopted a policy of not belonging to any caucuses. <2>

In San Francisco, however, Pelosi is sometimes seen as more moderate than liberal, since she voted for the Patriot Act (which she now opposes) and authored the Presidio Trust Act, which privatized the Presidio of San Francisco.

Like most House Democrats, Pelosi opposed the resolution authorizing Bush to use military force against Iraq. She has strongly criticized the war effort since then, and introduced an amendment to the FY 2006 Defense Appropriations bill calling on Bush to specify a strategy for success in Iraq, as well as a timetable for a safe withdrawal of American troops.

Quotes:

Response to the State of the Union Address, January 20, 2004: "America must be a light to the world, not just a missile."

Referring to George W. Bush, Fox News, March 17, 2005: "Why should we put a plan out? Our plan is to stop him. He must be stopped."

Pelosi's account of a meeting with President Bush in which she called for the firing of FEMA director Michael Brown, who eventually resigned. ca. September 2005: "He said 'Why would I do that?' I said 'because of all that went wrong, of all that didn't go right last week.' And he said 'What didn't go right?' Oblivious, in denial, dangerous."

Pelosi on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, November 30, 2005: "That's why they had to make up that story about weapons of mass destruction. Because that was the only thing that would sell to the American people, and that wasn't true."

[Radical Activist]

44. Its about educating the public.

People need to know just how criminal this administration is. That will likely result in several positive outcomes like:
1) A national Democratic landslide in the next election.
2) Maybe fewer people will be fooled next time
3) Whoever replaces Bush will have no credibility and very little real power to do anything. That stops their agenda.

These are important results that will benefit the nation for years to come.

[IChing]

46. Stupid poll....

you obviously think that impeachment can happen in a republican controlled house
which is imperative for your poll to work with Hastert getting the top place.

[BootinUp]

48. I'll take a Ham on Rye. n/t

[Jack Rabbit]

49. !!

PELOSI FOR PRESIDENT IN 2007

[TheBaldyMan]

55. Hastert has to assume the Presidency after Bush & Cheney go

followed by Presidential elections for a shortened term.

[sampsonblk]

56. I voted for Cheney - did I really SAY that???

The successor is not a big deal. Whoever it is will be fairly powerless. The important point is to make sure - and I mean absolutely sure - that everyone knows that Bush is a filthy liar and that the things he's done are illegal, immoral and just plain wrong.

What damage can Cheney really do in a few short months? He'd be a lame duck the entire time, and he'd enter the White House with the public knowing full well that he's at least as crooked as Bush.

Perfect scenario - except for the temporary foreign policy vacuum.

[ProudDad]

57. If there were a successful impeachment

Nancy Pelosi would be next in line after bush and cheney.

The (probable) Speaker of the House after the Dems take the House and Senate.

In order to actually remove from office, they must get 2/3 of the votes in the Senate trial so Dems + repukes with a conscience must total 67.

However, with a Dem majority the House and Senate could keep the bushies paralyzed the same way the pukes had Clinton paralyzed the last few years of his presidency.

[PBass]

60. Forget the order of succession!!!

Lets say Bush is impeached, and somehow Cheney is not implicated and becomes president.

In my opinion, ANY kind of "left-overs from Bush" administration will be so handicapped to the point of becoming totally irrelevant and totally powerless. They will spend all their time trying to recover from the impeachment, and they will have zero credibility and zero pull.

Impeaching Bush will mark a HARD BREAK with Bush-era policies and Bush-era approaches to running the federal government. If there is a radical change in the White House (Cheney goes too, etc etc) then there is a chance that for the rest of the term the White House can be somewhat useful in running the government.

If Bush holdovers do take the reins, the end of the current term will be nothing more than the White House killing time until the next election, with Congress stepping up to fill the void in power. (In my opinion).

IMPEACH YES

[TankLV]

68. After having carefully thought it all out, the important thing is

rule of law - and that DICTATES IMPEACHMENT.

Let the chips fall where they may, even if it is "the dick" cheney.

[Rene]

69. We must get the dick Cheney out first.....prosecution or resignation

We get a new VP (not McCain) and then we impeach shrub.