I support the impeachment of the President and the Vice-President. Nevertheless, I hope that no one tries to actually do it.
The reason is this: there's less than a year until this administration is out of office (assuming no Seven Days In May type activity). During that period, we will be electing a new administration. What good does focusing on the evils of this one do, when they can easily run out the clock on any impeachment activities?
Focus on bringing in the new leader - whomever she might be. (g)
2 comments:
Well.... although I'm excited for any new administration in the White House... I think that the impeachment system is in place for a reason, and if people do such things to provoke its process, it should be done, despite of how much time they have left to serve. That's part of the "checks and balances" that makes our system different.
Its a question of the likelihood of success -- remember, there's still a whole bunch of Republicans in office, many of whom are Bush supporters (whether they privately want to be or not). They'd block attempts to impeach, and if it got out of the House (which is likely, I think), and into the Senate, the chances of success there are dim. I would very much like to see him held accountable, but the only way it would work is if there were civil penalties that were applicable whether or not he were in office. (Something that nailed his 'replenish the coffers' comment, for starters, would be nice.) And its got to be a two-fer -- could you stand the idea of a President Cheney, even for a day?
And even if BOTH worked, what other Executive Branch business would get done during that period? A great opportunity for, say, Iran or North Korea to kick up their heels....
Never thought I'd use the Italian system as a model, but right now a vote of No Confidence sounds pretty appealing.
Post a Comment