The Washington Times magazine is reporting that the Bush Administration is preparing (perhaps even anticipating) impeachment after next month's hearing into the domestic surveillance program. (Sorry George, I won't call it the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" because I, unlike you, don't consider innocent Americans to be terrorists.)
I don't think impeachment is likely, but they may not be a bad thing. First, removing Bush means we get Cheney (that's decidedly bad). Second, keeping Bush in office means that we get an unpopular president (most recent numbers show 36% approval) and his incredibly unpopular policies in office going into the mid-terms and beyond.
2 comments:
I'm not totally convinced that Cheney for Prez would be worse than President Bush. If anything, he's more unlikeable and more obviously corrupt and anti-civil liberties without more than a fig-leaf of the Christian conservativism that's kept the egg from sticking to the President thus far. I say crank up the heat for the next three years: Cheney for President.
Cheney'd be legally reelectable, though not so politically. So, trade in one lame duck for another (with precarious health)? It depends a bit on your view of how best to neutralize Cheney. Do you keep him away from the real position of power or do you trust that the increased scrutiny that falls on the president will limit him? In other words, do you hide him in the attic, far from the fuses, or do you expose him to the light and hope that it purifies the body politic?
Bah. It's a pipe dream. Bush'd have to do something obscenely shocking to get impeached, much less convicted, and he and his handlers are too smart to get caught.
Post a Comment