Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is it naive to believe it's possible to replace W with a Dem before 07?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
freedomchips Donating Member (35 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-15-06 11:54 PM
Original message
Is it naive to believe it's possible to replace W with a Dem before 07?
It's not like the truth isn't on our side. I'm about to have a story published that is all about making that happen. It's predicated on the notion that, in light of the slew of evidence in our arsenal, it's not implausible that, if we packaged that info properly, we could completely undo all the support for Bush and his enabling Republicans.It's set in the context of a teacher discussing with his adult students all of this evidence. Most of the students are people of notoriety. It's posted here: http://www.geocities.com/clarksapples/UndoBush.html

Here's an excerpt:

“Teacher, speaking of creating opportunity,” asked Whoopi Goldberg, “what do you make of the fact that Republican Senator Lugar told Al Franken: ‘The government can’t create jobs’?”

“I’d like to make a noose of that fact and hang The Republican Party. They ought to just put up a sign at their headquarters that reads: ‘WE’RE USELESS AND WE HAVE NO IMAGINATION.’ For starters, the government could hire every electrician to install light and motion sensors on the light switches in every building. And besides merely telling Americans that we need to conserve, they could also make low-interest long-term loans available so communities can weatherize their homes, schools and businesses. And they can’t use the excuse that no one has ever thought of this idea since Harry Reid has already thrown it out there. It’s as though their playbook is to do the opposite of the Democrats and common sense, i.e., ‘Dark Days for Energy Efficiency’ and ‘Senate Republicans Screw Troops Yet Again.’”

“Not only are they useless,” Whoopi noted, “but they’re also clueless; as was first proven when Reagan took office and removed the solar panels Carter had put in; then again when Senator Dole ran a commercial denouncing Democrats for pushing midnight basketball; and again when a Republican Congresswoman said on the house floor that ‘The American people know how to spend their money more wisely than the government.’ By that logic it would mean that beef is a wiser purchase than tofu, cows’ milk a wiser purchase than soy milk, and that more than half the stuff in Wal-Mart is not useless junk.”

“Indeed, Whoopi,” said Lynn Samuels, “but, considering that the current incarnation of Uncle Sam believes that applying a ‘waste not, want not’ strategy to the economy would hinder prosperity, you have to admit that she’s right to accuse the government of being unwise with its spending; i.e., WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MONEY FOR THE LEVEES!!!!??? ...So I guess it shouldn’t surprise anyone that despite Katrina’s wrath they have still made it explicitly clear that their avarice knows no bounds, and, thus, won’t be satisfied until they repeal the estate tax on the top 2%, which amounts to $1 trillion in tax revenue. And to add insult to injury, on November 18, 2005, the Republican-controlled Congress helped itself to a $3,100 pay raise and then postponed work on bills to curb spending on social programs and cut taxes in favor of a two-week vacation. Then, on June 23, 2006, they voted down the increase in the minimum wage!! No wonder Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson were able to fill a whole book on their completely parasitic style of legislating in Off Center: The Republican Revolution and the Erosion of Democracy to complement John Dean’s Conservatives Without Conscience.”

“Not only that, teacher, but Bush and his crazy neo-Cons still insist that the super rich get huge tax cuts despite the $200 billion it’s going to take to rebuild the devastation. So I guess we’re all going to have to set ourselves on fire to prevent that, otherwise it’s only a matter of time before China calls in its loan.”

“Teacher,” asked Jim Hightower, “why does President Flip-Flop act like he deserves a medal whenever he stands on principle even if it’s in the face of serious opposition, but then frowns upon others who do the same thing in opposition to him as if it’s not their civic duty to voice their dissent? Like, with Dixie Chicks. If Bush had half a clue about setting an example to the world about the beauty of democracy, not only would he have told the people to back off of them, his retort would have been: ‘I’m proud of my fellow Texans who have the character to honor America’s most important principle.’ Or like, with Terri Schiavo. If they genuinely believe that the federal government is morally obligated to usurp everyone else, then, fine. But how do they dare argue to the rest of us that we’re immoral for thinking that sometimes it’s necessary to decide if people get to continue living? What the hell do they think they were doing when deciding to explode bombs around civilians or when they execute those who might very well be innocent?”

“It would certainly be interesting to hear how he’d answer that himself. And he certainly deserves a special Presidential Academy Award for being able to keep a straight face when he said of Terri that ‘It’s always wise to err on the side of life.’”

“Teacher, a caller to Michael Reagan’s radio show said: ‘The war is going magnificently.’ So isn’t it possible that Wes, Chuck Hagel, Larry Diamond, Bill Krystol, Francis Fukuyama, William Buckley, Shep Smith, Newt Gingrich, Bruce Bartlett, Jack Straw, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Scott Ritter, Christopher Shays, Jack Murtha, Col. Mike Turner, Marine Captain Christopher H. Sheppherd, U.S. Army Staff Sergeant Charles Pollard, Marine Maj. William McCollough, the Stop the War Coalition and Generals Sir Richard Dannatt, Colin Powell, Anthony Zinni, John Batiste, Paul Eaton, Gregory Newbold, John Riggs, Charles Swannack, Jr., William Odom and Paul Van Riper don’t know what they’re talking about?”

“Well, go read The Guardian article from Nov. 29, ‘Nowhere to Run,’ by Martin van Creveld, a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and one of the world’s foremost military historians. Several of his books have influenced modern military theory and he is the only non-American author on the US Army’s list of required reading for officers. According to him, President Bush should be impeached and put on trial ‘for misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 BC sent his legions into Germany and lost them.’ And that in Iraq ‘There is now a multi-party electoral system, but it has institutionalized and consolidated the country’s ethnic, sectarian and tribal divisions—exactly the sort of thing that should be avoided when attempting to democratize.’ Furthermore…‘No one can claim that any of this was unexpected. The dangers had been foreseen by numerous analysts and commentators long before the war started but they were ignored in Washington, mainly for ideological reasons.’


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-16-06 12:03 AM
Response to Original message
1. It may not be naive, but it would be constitutionally challenging.
You'd have to

1)make sure Diebold doesn't cheat us out of a majority of the House and also possibly the Senate

2)get Bush impeached

3)get Cheney impeached.

(Actually, now that I reread the thread title, you'd have to get the second two items through a lame-duck GOP congress if you actually meant before 2007.)

Did you actually mean before 2008?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freedomchips Donating Member (35 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-16-06 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. you lack imagination, no offense
my story spells out how you get around that. as I say in the heading, if Bush's supporters all turned on him....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-16-06 12:04 AM
Response to Original message
2. Yes, it is naive.
Edited on Mon Oct-16-06 12:12 AM by elocs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-16-06 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. What interesting questions you ask.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-16-06 12:22 AM
Response to Original message
4. absolutely

we shouldn't get our hopes up.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-16-06 12:43 AM
Response to Original message
5. There is nothing wrong with visualizing your goals
Impeach in the House, convict in the senat=remove from office. Pelosi, 3rd in line, is sworn in as President in August of 2007.

So lets just win 3 weeks from now. See my Sig.... I am working 25 hours a week for this guy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demwing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-16-06 02:48 AM
Response to Original message
7. It's not "naive"
but it would be extremely difficult.

Can you imagine Madame President Pelosi? The Repukes would cough up a lung.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seriousstan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-16-06 04:35 AM
Response to Original message
8. yes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheilaT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-16-06 08:38 AM
Response to Original message
9. Yes, it's naive.
It requires a series of extremely unlikely events, starting with a Democratic House and Senate, and then assuming that Democrats in both houses would have the will to impeach and then convict Bush and get him out of office. It also requires the removal of Cheney, and the assumption that a replacement VP would not be selected.

Even if Democrats win big next month, as a number of astute political observers are thinking possible -- and THAT outcome assumes a free, fair, and honest election -- I think you'd see the Supreme Court putting a stop to any impeachment proceedings.

Look at how Hastert is refusing to resign, look at how the mainstream media continues to treat opposition to the war in Iraq as a minority opinion, look at how many Democrats have voted in concert with this Administration's worst legislation, and ask yourself: What will it REALLY take for meaningful change.

A charming fable isn't even a start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-16-06 08:53 AM
Response to Original message
10. yes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeff In Milwaukee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-16-06 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
11. It's possible, but I wouldn't do it even if I had the power
I want a national realignment of our core principles more than I want to see George W. Bush disgraced and driven from office. I would much rather spend the next two years (assuming a majority in at least one chamber of Congress) on a series of lengthy congressional reviews that will, in excruciating detail, make it clear to voters why CONSERVATIVE POLICY is wrong-headed and dangerous.

If we make George W. Bush the issue, then it lets conservatives live to fight another day. John McCain can bring his "Bullshit Express" to Washington and claim that Bush simply "got conservatism wrong" and proceed to implement the same policies. A host of lesser imitators can simply through Bush under the bus and proceed to cut healthcare for working families while further enriching America's billionaires.

Given a choice, I'd rather see Bush serve out his full term. Besides, imagine the fun of his being forced to attend Hillary Clinton's inaugeration!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 03:16 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC