Gore 08??!? Why are you suggesting waiting?

[HamdenRice]

Clearly one insight of Gore's speech is that Bush has broken the law consistently and repeatedly. The administration is lawless and if we the people are to enforce the constitution and Congress is to begin doing its job, then the Bush administration has to be removed through the orderly constitutional process of impeachment.

Obviously, the even more criminal Cheney cannot be allowed to succeed to the presidency, so he has to be impeached and removed from office first.

Just as when Nixon resigned, and Agnew was too criminal to succeed him and had to be removed first, this means that Congress and the people will have an opportunity to choose the new president before the next election.

I now firmly believe the House will turn over in 2006, not just because Americans are fed up, but because in all likelihood, several dozen Republican representatives will have been indicted by then. That means impeachment hearings in 2007 and the removal of this immoral, criminal, unconstitutional regime in that year.

Perhaps Gore will be appointed in 2007 and will not have to wait until 2008.

[SharonRB]

1. Speaker of the House is next in line after the VP

So, if we take back the House, Pelosi may be the next president. This scenario was posed somewhere on DU the other day. A new president isn't just appointed. There's a very set order.

[HamdenRice]

2. Actually we did go through that entire scenario and it goes like this:

You are confusing the order of succession, which applies in a disaster, when the president, vp, etc all die; and what happens when the VP is removed.

When the VP is removed, the president with confirmation of Congress appoints a new VP. Then, when the president is removed, the appointed VP becomes president.

That's what happened with the Nixon administration. The order of succession does not apply.

[eyesroll]

3. And Bush will nominate Gore to that position, because?

:wtf:

[glitch]

4. perhaps in a plea-bargain.

:evilgrin:

[HamdenRice]

5. As with Nixon, he won't have a choice ...

A president in that situation is so weakened, and Congress has the power to approve or disapprove that the deal is worked out in Congress rather than in the WH.

That's what happened with Nixon. Gerry Ford was one of the most popular and trusted guys in Congress.

Nixon had to appoint who he was told to appoint.

[eyesroll]

6. Yes, but Ford was a *Republican.*

Sorry, no way Bush would nominate a Democrat, even if his feet were to the fire.

[HamdenRice]

7. Yes, but if the Dems take the House what's the alternative?

You raise the very valid larger point that in an impeachment process, the appointment of the next president is a largely political and not legal process.

That's why we need to start planning and organizing for it now.

As for your specific question, here's why: he would have no choice of party. Impeachment is not going to happen unless the Democrats take control of the House. That means a Democratic Speaker of the House.

It is inconceivable that the Democrats would allow Cheney to succeed Bush, because he is even more criminal and corrupt than Bush.

Once Cheney is removed, there is a vacany in the VP office. Bush would then have a choice: either appoint a Democrat; or if he doesn't then he resigns or is removed with a vacancy in the VP's office. If there's a vacancy in the VP's office then the order of succession, actually does come into play. In that case, the next in line for presidency is the Speaker, a Democrat.

In other words the choice to bush would be either the Democrat we want to appoint or the Democratic Speaker if you don't do what we tell you. It's a lose-lose situation.

That's of course only if the Democrats have backbone. In fact last week I wrote a post predicting that if there is an impeachment, the likely outcome would be a European style "government of national unity", probably consisting of Powell-Gore.

I'm just saying today, after this speech, if the Democrats take the House and impeach Bush they should be more hardnosed about it.

[SharonRB]

8. You're right -- I forgot the president picks a new VP

when the VP is ousted. However, what makes us think he'd pick someone we'd want? It would never happen in a million years. He'd pick someone who would do a heckuva job.

[HamdenRice]

9. Take a look at my posts above ...

I'm saying it's something that, given the balance of power that will necessarily be in effect if Bush is impeached, can be arranged.

[SharonRB]

10. We can talk all we want, but we'll just have to wait and see

how things play out. The anticipation is killing me, though.

[HamdenRice]

12. But I think that's one of the things Gore was saying today ...

which is not sit as a spectator and wait. In fact, if it is important to plan and organize now for the outcome we want.

[longship]

11. Impeach Crashcart and Chimp will appoint another lunatic

The Chimp is incapable of acting any other way. He only knows politics. That's what will happen regardless of the circumstances. He has already shown that he will gladly thrust the country into a constitutional crisis rather than show any deference to the opposition party.

Everything to these people is political. *Everything*.