You've probably heard this going around and they have all the power to do it but people have tried to impeach EVERY PRESIDENT!

Here's more ...I don't support any of this.. that's all I can say..I won't have anything to say further on it for now, it's OPEN FOR COMMENTS...:
(there, am I covered that this is a call from some other group that I am not involved with?..good) Read on:



http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/39

Urge Congress to Investigate Bush's Iraq War Lies

I urge Congress to adopt this Resolution of Inquiry:

Whereas considerable evidence has emerged that George W. Bush,
President of the United States, has engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and
mislead the United States Congress and the American people as to the basis
for taking the nation into war against Iraq, that George W. Bush,
President of the United States, has manipulated intelligence so as to allege
falsely a national security threat posed to the United States by Iraq,
and that George W. Bush, President of the United States, has committed
a felony by submitting a false report to the United States Congress on
the reasons for launching a first-strike invasion of Iraq: Now,
therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary is directed to
investigate and report to the House of Representatives whether sufficient grounds
exist to impeach George W. Bush, President of the United States. Upon
completion of such investigation, that Committee shall report thereto,
including, if the Committee so determines, articles of impeachment.



http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/39

Urge Congress to Investigate Bush's Iraq War Lies

I urge Congress to adopt this Resolution of Inquiry:



Inquiry does not equal Impeachment.

I don't think anyone tried to impeach william henry harrison

Harrison only served about a month from the attached article- SEE ENDING SENTENCE- you can see they tried to get his successor Tyler....

They waited at least a couple of months before complaining about Schwartzenegger..just give them time and someone will start the ball rolling..:

The Presidencies of William Henry Harrison and John Tyler
Norma Lois Peterson
344 pages, 6 x 9
American Presidency Series
Cloth ISBN 0-7006-0400-6, $35.00

Wearied by the hotly contested "Log Cabin and Hard Cider" campaign that unseated the Democratic incumbent, Martin Van Buren, Harrison succumbed to pneumonia after only one month in office, the first chief executive to die in the White House. His death precipitated a governmental crisis, which Vice President John Tyler promptly resolved--to the consternation of his Whig Party--by claiming the office and title of president, thus setting a precedent that only later was codified in the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Instead of the pliable Harrison, the Whigs confronted in Tyler a tenacious defender of presidential prerogative and a formidable foe of their plan to establish congressional supremacy over the executive branch. Threatened with impeachment, repeatedly exhorted to resign, banished from the Whig Party, abandoned by his cabinet, and burned in effigy, Tyler stood firm and maintained the integrity of the presidential office.

Harrison only served about a month from the attached article- SEE ENDING SENTENCE- you can see they tried to get his successor Tyler....

They waited at least a couple of months before complaining about Schwartzenegger..just give them time and someone will start the ball rolling..:



Considering Schwartzenegger only got in after winning a smaller amount of votes than the number of votes required to evict the current seated governor I don't think it really matters how they try and evict him. He shouldn't have been there in the first place.  He certainly won't get re-elected anyways. What's his approval rating now?  Somewhere slightly higher than Bush's 35% approval rating?

Considering Schwartzenegger only got in after winning a smaller amount of votes than the number of votes required to evict the current seated governor I don't think it really matters how they try and evict him. He shouldn't have been there in the first place.  He certainly won't get re-elected anyways. What's his approval rating now?  Somewhere slightly higher than Bush's 35% approval rating?

Somehow people of the Golden State seem disillusioned the "Governator" didn't solve the problems of California like he got all the bad guys in his movies!
:D

Did they talk about impeaching Jerry Ford?  I don't remember.  It's not an impeachable offense to pardon crooks.

Did they talk about impeaching Jerry Ford?  I don't remember.  It's not an impeachable offense to pardon crooks.


No, but I'm sure it didn't help his election bid in 1976.  Pardons are frequently abused, I'm not sure I've ever understood why they're even allowed. 

Bush has nothing to fear from an inquiry on the build up to war in Iraq, unless he's guilty of intentionally misleading the Congress.  A very hard charge to prove.  I'm sure he's not losing sleep over it, and I'm sure his neocon buddies aren't either.  Just another distraction from the Plume incident.

Somehow people of the Golden State seem disillusioned the "Governator" didn't solve the problems of California like he got all the bad guys in his movies!
:D

Did they talk about impeaching Jerry Ford? I don't remember. It's not an impeachable offense to pardon crooks.
And Tricky Dick Nixon deserved to be IMPEACHED. He flat-out STOLE the election. Any president who feels a break-in at the opposing candidate's party headquarters to spy on them is not only a crook but too much of a loose cannon to be President...

And Tricky Dick Nixon deserved to be IMPEACHED. He flat-out STOLE the election. Any president who feels a break-in at the opposing candidate's party headquarters to spy on them is not only a crook but too much of a loose cannon to be President...

I agree Tricky Dicky deserved to be impeache--and didn't deserve to be pardoned--but he it's news to me that he "stole" the election.  What Nixon did was peanuts compared to what Bush and his cronies did.  Irrefutable evidence shows he stole both the 2000 and 2004 elections.  In 2000 he used corrupt Florida secretary of state Katherine Harris.  She parlayed some of the worst malfeasance in US electoral history into a US House seat and is now running for the US Senate.  She'll win, no doubt.
::)
In 2004 Dubya was assisted by corrupt Ohio secretary of state J. Kenneth Blackwell.  His criminality will undboutedly be rewarded in whatever avenue he chooses to pursue.
Where is the outrage?  Not to be found in the cowering, obsequious mainstream press!

See Harper's magazine, August 2005
None Dare Call It Stolen: Ohio, the election, and America's Servile Press
by Mark Crispin Miller
http://www.harpers.org/ExcerptNoneDare.html

And this is what self-proclaimed conservatives consider honorable behavior by self-proclaimed conservative politicians?  Sorry, I'm not down widdat!
:P

I only have one question on this topic and it applies to republican and democratic alike...

if impeachments are ok, then what is the point of an election!?!?

or maybe a better question: what is the point of a term??

Why not just say the election is good until we change our minds and decide we don't like the choice we made, then we get to pick a new one...?

I only have one question on this topic and it applies to republican and democratic alike...

if impeachments are ok, then what is the point of an election!?!?

OK, I don't have time for Civics 101, but "impeachment" is not the same as removal from office.  Impeachment is the inquiry into whether an official should be removed from office by a legislature.  The answer to your question should be fairly obvious.  I mean if we couldn't imeach the president, we'd be stuck with him.  He could do whatever he darn well wanted, including extortion, murder, and treason, and the Congress could say nothing about it!

or maybe a better question: what is the point of a term??

Why not just say the election is good until we change our minds and decide we don't like the choice we made, then we get to pick a new one...?

That's sort of the way the prime minister is elected or put out in a parliamentary system, except the people don't vote for the prime minister.  The people vote for their ministers of parliament and parliament votes for prime minister.  If the ministers of parliament convene a vote of "no confidence" against the sitting PM, he or she is out.  Then the ministers hold another election.  The democratic part of it comes from the people holding their respective ministers accountable for the prime minister's actions.  Someone from one of the parliamentary countries could better explain this than I.

Anyway, to let a popularly elected president stay in office until a majority of the voters decided he or she must got would be far too unweildy.  We'd have constant pressure for special elections to get rid of the new president as soon as he got sworn in!  You think presidential campaigns run too long now.... 

That's sort of the way the prime minister is elected or put out in a parliamentary system, except the people don't vote for the prime minister.  The people vote for their ministers of parliament and parliament votes for prime minister.  If the ministers of parliament convene a vote of "no confidence" against the sitting PM, he or she is out.  Then the ministers hold another election.  The democratic part of it comes from the people holding their respective ministers accountable for the prime minister's actions.  Someone from one of the parliamentary countries could better explain this than I.

Anyway, to let a popularly elected president stay in office until a majority of the voters decided he or she must got would be far too unweildy.  We'd have constant pressure for special elections to get rid of the new president as soon as he got sworn in!  You think presidential campaigns run too long now.... 


Well, there is a bit of a problem in that the electoral system is GARBAGE.

And I agree with you that letting a popularly elected president stay in office until a majority of the voters decide he or she must go is not a good idea... but when people start getting the idea that as soon as they don't like what an official is doing, they can start the impeachment process, it means the term of office is meaningless.

And I agree that a president, governor or any other official should be held accountable for their personal criminal activity (such as murder) just like any other citizen...  in a situation like that, the president/governor should be imprisoned and the vice president takes over...  which is why, even though I'm a republican, i didnt support the clinton impeachment one bit..  what ordinary citizen gets fired from their job for having an affair??  I didn't like Clinton... but I was against the impeachment.. because i didn't think there was even close to a good reason...

Well, there is a bit of a problem in that the electoral system is GARBAGE.

And I agree with you that letting a popularly elected president stay in office until a majority of the voters decide he or she must go is not a good idea... but when people start getting the idea that as soon as they don't like what an official is doing, they can start the impeachment process, it means the term of office is meaningless.

And I agree that a president, governor or any other official should be held accountable for their personal criminal activity (such as murder) just like any other citizen...  in a situation like that, the president/governor should be imprisoned and the vice president takes over...   which is why, even though I'm a republican, i didnt support the clinton impeachment one bit..  what ordinary citizen gets fired from their job for having an affair??  I didn't like Clinton... but I was against the impeachment.. because i didn't think there was even close to a good reason...

It would go along way to get commerce out of elections.  No corporate money donations of any kind.  No PAC money, no lobbyist funds, and no labor union dough, for what they're worth any more.
Free and equal TV time for every candidate, an eight week election season, and the whole things funded in equal parcels through a smidgeon paid by each taxpayer.
But...we all know the truth.  That would be REVOLUTION, the instant death of the Republican party, with the Dems crumbling behind it.

And Tricky Dick Nixon deserved to be IMPEACHED.


Well, he wasn't.

Don't ever forget Clinton was the only elected president to ever be impeached (Andrew Johnson wasn't elected, he got in office after Lincoln was killed.)

Well, he wasn't.

Don't ever forget Clinton was the only elected president to ever be impeached (Andrew Johnson wasn't elected, he got in office after Lincoln was killed.)


Well only because he resigned before they could.  It would have happened.

And Tricky Dick Nixon deserved to be IMPEACHED. He flat-out STOLE the election. Any president who feels a break-in at the opposing candidate's party headquarters to spy on them is not only a crook but too much of a loose cannon to be President...


Excuse me, but stole?

Nixon won by one of the largest landslides ever.  George McGovern did not even have a chance.  The biggest crime of Watergate is that it was not even needed.

Now how did a failed burglary result in a stollen election?

or maybe a better question: what is the point of a term??

Why not just say the election is good until we change our minds and decide we don't like the choice we made, then we get to pick a new one...?


Personally, I think the Confederate states did one thing right in their constitution.

When their constitution was written, they put in limits for President.  If the Confederacy had survived, they would have ellected their President every 6 years, and he would not have been able to run for re-ellection.  I think this would be a good thing, because that way he could spend his entire term doing his job, and not taking off at least 1 year to run again.

After all, when you think about it a President does not get much done his first term.  At least 1 year to formulate new ideas and get rid of the lame-duck ones his predicessor put in place before he left office.  Then they take 1 year off to run for re-ellection, that gives them only 2 years to really function.  It is only during their second term that they really get a chance to make many changes.  Then they are carrying over things they already started, and do not have to worry about taking time off to campaign (other then a little for their parties choice as replacement).

Excuse me, but stole?

Nixon won by one of the largest landslides ever.  George McGovern did not even have a chance.  The biggest crime of Watergate is that it was not even needed.

Now how did a failed burglary result in a stollen election?


I was about to write that.  What Nixon did was dishonest, but he didn't steal an election.  Hell, it was the second biggest landslide in United States history, if I remember correctly (next only to Reagan's 1984 win over Walter Mondale.)  Nixon won every state except Massachusetts in 1972.

1972 election:

Richard Milhous Nixon
Party: Republican
Popular vote: 46,740,323 (60.7%)
Electoral vote: 520

George Stanley McGovern
Party: Democrat
Popular vote: 28,901,598 (37.5%)
Electoral vote: 17

John G. Hospers
Party: Libertarian
Popular vote: 3,676 (0.0%)
Electoral vote: 1

John G. Schmitz
Party: American
Popular vote: 1,099,482 (1.4%)
Electoral vote: 0

Other
Popular vote: 275,102 (0.4%)
Electoral vote: 0

Total votes cast: 77,020,181
Winner: Richard Milhous Nixon (Republican)

http://img.tfd.com/thumb/9/94/ElectoralCollege1972-Large.png

Well, he wasn't.

Don't ever forget Clinton was the only elected president to ever be impeached (Andrew Johnson wasn't elected, he got in office after Lincoln was killed.)

Impeached, yes, but the Get Clinton contingent did not garner enough votes to remove him from office.  So the impeachment only succeeded in smearing the president, and the Republicans didn't get to kick out their nemisis.

Personally, I think the Confederate states did one thing right in their constitution.

When their constitution was written, they put in limits for President.  If the Confederacy had survived, they would have ellected their President every 6 years, and he would not have been able to run for re-ellection. 
If the Confederacy had survived, it would be just another backwater banana republic. 
Anyway, if the one party controlled the executive branch and the other party controlled the legislative, that one term would be one loooong lame duck presidency!

If the Confederacy had survived, it would be just another backwater banana republic. 
Anyway, if the one party controlled the executive branch and the other party controlled the legislative, that one term would be one loooong lame duck presidency!


Honestly, I do not think the Confederacy would have lasted 40 years.  The things that happened right after the Civil War (mechanization, Bole Weevil Infestation, massive industrialization, labor unions) would more then likely have doomed the Confederacy by the time of World War I.  (Although interestingly, I am reading a book right now with that very premise)

And as for "Lame Duck", I do not buy that.  You are talking about most of the Republican Presidents from Richard Nixon to George Bush Sr.  I still remember the wrangling that Reagan had with Tip O'Neal.  Yet nobody can say that President Reagan did not get a lot of key legislation passed.

And at the same time, most of President Clinton's administration was under a Republican Majority.  I would hardly say that he was a "Lame Duck" for 6 years.

I think that would only happen if the President was trying to pass legislation that was strongly in opposition to the Congress control.  I actually think that these cases tend to bring a "coalition GOvernment".  California is a good example of that.  While their state legislature has been strongly Democrat for all of my life, they mostly elect Republicans as Governor.  It actually works like a check and ballance.  The Governor will not get to extreme in his policies, and he can Veto any legislation that gets to far to the other side.

And as somebody who lived in California in the late 1990's and early 2000's, that is exactly what lead to Governor Davis' removal.  Power rates through the roof, blackouts, and gasoline prices going sky-high (at the time that the state legislature was trying to pass a $0.50 a gallon tax that the Governor approved of) lead the state to removing him and putting a Republican back in.  The "Gas Tax" and "SUV Tax" (an almost passed "fee" of $500-$1,000 per year for SUV owners) lead to the removal of "Greyout Davis".

Honestly, I do not think the Confederacy would have lasted 40 years.  The things that happened right after the Civil War (mechanization, Bole Weevil Infestation, massive industrialization, labor unions) would more then likely have doomed the Confederacy by the time of World War I.  (Although interestingly, I am reading a book right now with that very premise)



Is this a Harry Turtledove book?  How is it?

Is this a Harry Turtledove book?  How is it?


Yes, actually it is a Harry Turtledove book.  He truely is the master of "Alternate History" books.

He normally starts with a very simple change in the "historical timeline", and expands it from there.  In this series, the shift happens before the Battle of Antietam.  HIstorically, Union soldiers discovered a complete copy of General Lee's battle plan (wrapped around 3 cigars) and were able to head him off, causing him to retreat.  It was also the victory needed that allowed Abraham Lincoln to enact his "Emancipation Proclamation".

In this series the orders are not lost, and Lee goes on to encircle Washington DC.  The English and French step in, and force a settlement between the 2 sides.  There is later a second war when the Confederacy buys 2 states from Mexico (to build theor own transcontinental railroad).  It then continues through WWI (with England-France-Russia-Japan-CSA Vs. USA-Germany-Hungary-Turkey).

Book 7 (which I just finished this morning) starts at the beginning of WWII, with the CSA being a Fascist state, instigating a lightning strike against the USA.  There are 3 more books (at least) due in this series.  The author that he reminds me most of with his scope of writing is John Jakes.  Mr. Turtledove writes books that span generations, and is not afraid to kill off a main character if it helps the story progress.

Another great story he did several years ago was one of the first "Steam Punk" stories, which he wrote with Richard Dreyfus (yes, the actor).  If you have not read that, check it out.  It is "The Two Georges".

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