 |
|
Add to My Group
|
November 23, 2008 at 17:29:26
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 11/23/08: by Rob Kall Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
 
|
2
2
1
NY Times writer, Gail Collins, says, in an article, TIME FOR HIM TO GO, that George W. Bush should go now. She observes, Bush, "who is currently on a trip to Peru to meet with Asian leaders who no longer care what he thinks — hasn’t got the clout, or possibly even the energy, to do anything useful. His most recent contribution to resolving the fiscal crisis was lecturing representatives of the world’s most important economies on the glories of free-market capitalism." Collins suggests that Cheney would have to agree to resign, then Bush and Nancy Pelosi would step in and let Obama take charge. Then she observes that at least, this way, a woman would be president for a short time. (And I like the idea of getting Pelosi out of the house, though she'd probably run for her old seat. Oh well. Then, Collins goes a bit tongue in cheek, saying, 
"Bush might not love the idea of quitting before he has a chance to light the Christmas tree or commute the execution of one last presidential turkey. After all, he still has a couple more trips planned. And last-minute regulations to issue. (So many national parks to despoil, so many endangered species to exterminate ... .) And then there’s all the packing.
On the other hand, he might want to consider his legacy, such as it is.
In happier days, Bush may have nurtured hopes of making it into the list of America’s mediocre presidents, but somewhere between Iraq and Katrina, that goal became a mountain too high. However, he might still have a chance to avoid the absolute bottom of the barrel, a spot currently occupied by James Buchanan, at least in my opinion."
She points out that Buchanan is rated worst because he did nothing, and that's what Bush seems to be doing.
And Collins is not the only one talking this way. Thomas Friedman writes, "If I had my druthers right now we would convene a special session of Congress, amend the Constitution and move up the inauguration from Jan. 20 to Thanksgiving Day."
Back in the spring and even early summer, and for several years before then, I was supporting impeachment. It should have happened and would have been the right thing to do. My vision of the process had the hearings in the congress as the vehicle for churning out enough evidence so the Republicans in the senate would go to Cheney, then Bush and tell them to resign or they would be impeached-- and that they Republicans would do it because they would be trying to save their party.
But the Dems were afraid to do it. And there were risks. If done too early, the Republicans could have claimed they'd purged themselves of their problems and t they could have blamed whichever Republican the Dem majority congress approved was unable to help the US because of the Dems.
But it's over now and I find it hard to envision a way where the lame duck Republicans in the senate would cooperate in getting rid of Bush, unless, as Collins suggests, they saw it as a way to get Obama in trouble and blame him more than Limbaugh has already begun to do. Collins observes,
"The person who would like this plan least probably would be Barack Obama. Who would want to be saddled with the auto industry’s problems ahead of schedule? The heads of America’s great carmaking corporations are so dim that they couldn’t even survive hearings run by members of Congress who actually wanted to help them. Really, when somebody asks you exactly how much money you need, the answer should not be something along the line of “a whole bunch.”
An instantaneous takeover would also ruin the Obama team’s plan to have the tidiest, best-organized presidential transition in history. Cutting it short and leaping into governing would turn their measured march toward power into a mad scramble. A lot of their Cabinet picks are still working on those 62-page questionnaires."
So, we face a lovely situation. Bush will surely want to unleash an unholy swarm of deregulations and orders favoring his favorite corporations, and he'll want to pardon a whole bunch of traitors and corrupt politicians and their enablers, flunkies and co-conspirators. The only way I can imagine him leaving is if the Republican lame duck senators persuade Nancy Pelosi to take impeachment off the table, or if they go straight to Bush and advise him that the only way to save his legacy AND the Republican party is for him to go.
Sorry. Not very likely. I've been thinking, since the election, that any hope for impeachment was gone, since the only reason to start it was to get the Republicans to act, to do "THE WALK" to tell Cheney and Bush to leave. That time is over. Now, more than ever, we face a time when it would be much better if someone would hand the reins over to Obama-- like his appointees or not. He certainly brings us more hope than Bush.
1 | 2
Rob Kall is executive editor, publisher and site architect of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
| 14 comments |
|
Not likely is so true
Bush has often enough shown his form of "integrity," so why do supposed intelligent individuals waste time speculating on actions which are inconceivable and impossibilities? Just a venting process? by sometimes blinded (4 articles, 106 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 614 comments [51 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 24, 2008 at 12:47:35 AM  (0+)
|
|
A groundswell could achieve it
Rob, when the public stood up and told their reps how they felt about the BAilout, it was the first indication that the peole had any voice. Now, if we call for an early inauguration, people will respond. Don't say it's never been done, let's just do it. The people will be relieved, believe me. and we might save the economy, though it looks grim. It will be dead by Jan. 20. by Jay Farrington (13 articles, 2 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 236 comments) on Monday, Nov 24, 2008 at 9:12:26 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: It hasn't been done because it is unconstitutional
Mr Farrington, you can't just move up the day of the inauguration, because the Constitution specifies when the presidential and congressional terms begin and end. Is you hatred of President Bush so great that you think trashing the Constitution is the proper response? by Dana Pico (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 193 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 24, 2008 at 6:14:06 PM (0+)
|
|
POST AS A HEADLINE, PLEASE
EXPEDITED TRANSITION MOVES UP INAUGURATION TO DAY AFTER THANKSGIVING by Jay Farrington (13 articles, 2 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 236 comments) on Monday, Nov 24, 2008 at 9:15:55 AM (0+)
|
|
Tyrants never just fade away
Bush is a tyrant. He is dangerous right up until the last day. by Steven G. Erickson (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 57 diaries, 218 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 24, 2008 at 9:27:26 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: and their deeds live after them
Eric, you are right, lest we forget it ain't over til.... by Jay Farrington (13 articles, 2 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 236 comments) on Monday, Nov 24, 2008 at 9:39:13 AM (0+)
|
|
Did James Buchanan Also...
Slaughter 3000 American citizens in a public square and accuse a cave-dweller in a far away country for it? Was Buchanan a massmurderer I meam? by ramsheyi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 793 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:42:23 AM (0+)
|
|
George Bush: Worst. President. Ever.
If Bush had "done nothing," things would be a whole lot better. I won't list the liteney of his crimes and misdemenors here; there are better places and a large bookcase of books to do that. But, he won't leave. Neither he nor the Republicans believe they did anything wrong. They think this is all a bad dream and they will yet be proven right (or Right). What Congress CAN and Should do is to begin confirmation hearings on Obama's new appoitments immediately. There is no law that says the current congress cannot approve appointments for the future president. The appointees need to hit the ground running on January 20, not be tied up in hearings. by Scott Baker (13 articles, 51 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 162 comments [35 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:39:01 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: a good idea-- early confirmation hearings
But I wonder if Harry Reid would trust MConnell and his troglodytes to f*ck with the appointments. by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 24, 2008 at 3:03:08 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: There usually are early confirmation hearings
It's just that they begin with the new Congress, which takes office seventeen days before the presidential term changes. by Dana Pico (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 193 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 24, 2008 at 6:16:03 PM (0+)
|
|
Dreamland
Our esteemed host wrote: So, we face a lovely situation. Bush will surely want to unleash an unholy swarm of deregulations and orders favoring his favorite corporations, and he'll want to pardon a whole bunch of traitors and corrupt politicians and their enablers, flunkies and co-conspirators. Even if we assume that President Bush would step aside early, such would not prevent him from issuing executive orders or pardons prior to that. And while the incoming president could not recind the pardons, he could overturn any executive orders issued by President Bush. I know that y'all don't like George Bush, but he'll leave office peacefully at noon on January 20th. Why you want to trash the Constitution to get him outr earlier is beyond me. I'm guessing that if a Republican wins in 2012, you won't be urging Mr Obama to step aside early. by Dana Pico (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 193 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 24, 2008 at 6:11:32 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Last-Minute Damage by The Worst President Ever™
George W. Bush continues to damage the country--even in his last days: "As the media focuses on President-elect Obama and the transition of power here in Washington, the Bush administration is quietly trying to push through a wide array of federal regulations before President Bush leaves office in January. "Up to ninety proposed regulations could be finalized by the outgoing administration, many of which would weaken government rules aimed at protecting consumers and the environment. According to the Washington Post, the new rules would be among the most controversial deregulatory steps of the Bush era. They include rules that could weaken workplace safety protections, allow local police to spy in the so-called “war on terror” and make it easier for federal agencies to ignore the Endangered Species Act. Basking in the Bama: by Perry Logan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 557 comments [74 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:57:47 AM (0+)
|
|
So?
If President Bush can push through these regulations on his own authority, then the next president can undo them on his own authority. by Dana Pico (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 193 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:17:32 AM (0+)
|
|
And technically, Barack Obama has not been elected yet
Under our system, the Constitution provided that we voted for 538 presidential electors, not a president. On December 15th, those electors meet in their various state capitals, and there they cast their votes. The secretaries of state of the states then forward those votes to the Congress, where the incoming Congress certifies the results and declares who has been elected our next president. Then, and only then, is the next president actually elected. by Dana Pico (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 193 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:22:02 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Interesting (1) 
Inspiring (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
