A GOP Plan To Oust Cheney

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Stephanie, Jun 26, 2007.

  1. Stephanie

    Stephanie Diamond Member

    Jul 11, 2004
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    I figured the title of this article would get a few people excited...::badgrin:

    By Sally Quinn:cuckoo:
    Tuesday, June 26, 2007; 12:00 AM

    The big question right now among Republicans is how to remove Vice President Cheney from office. Even before this week's blockbuster series in The Post, discontent in Republican ranks was rising.

    As the reputed architect of the war in Iraq, Cheney is viewed as toxic, and as the administration's leading proponent of an attack on Iran, he is seen as dangerous. As long as he remains vice president, according to this thinking, he has the potential to drag down every member of the party -- including the presidential nominee -- in next year's elections.

    Removing a sitting vice president is not easy, but this may be the moment. I remember Barry Goldwater sitting in my parents' living room in 1973, in the last days of Watergate, debating whether to lead a group of senior Republicans to the White House to tell President Nixon he had to go. His hesitation was that he felt loyalty to the president and the party. But in the end he felt a greater loyalty to his country, and he went to the White House.

    Today, another group of party elders, led by Sen. John Warner of Virginia, could well do the same. They could act out of concern for our country's plummeting reputation throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East.

    For such a plan to work, however, they would need a ready replacement. Until recently, there hasn't been an acceptable alternative to Cheney -- nor has there been a persuasive argument to convince President Bush to make a change. Now there is.

    The idea is to install a vice president who could beat the Democratic nominee in 2008. It's unlikely that any of the top three Republican candidates -- former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Sen. John McCain of Arizona or former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- would want the job, for fear that association with Bush's war would be the kiss of death.

    Nor would any of them be that attractive to the president. Giuliani is too New York, too liberal. His reputation as a leader, forged on 9/11 and the days after, carries him only so far. McCain, who has always had a rocky relationship with the president, lost much of his support from moderate Democrats and independents (and from a fair amount of Republicans) when the Straight Talk Express started veering off course. And no matter what anyone says about how Romney's religion doesn't matter, being a Mormon is simply not acceptable to Bush's base. Several right-wing evangelicals have told me they don't see Mormons as "true Christians."

    That leaves Fred Thompson. Everybody loves Fred. He has the healing qualities of Gerald Ford and the movie-star appeal of Ronald Reagan. He is relatively moderate on social issues. He has a reputation as a peacemaker and a compromiser. And he has a good sense of humor.

    He could be just the partner to bring out Bush's better nature -- or at least be a sensible voice of reason. I could easily imagine him telling the president, "For God's sake, do not push that button!" -- a command I have a hard time hearing Cheney give.

    Not only that, Thompson would give the Republicans a platform for running for the presidency -- and the president a way out of Iraq without looking like he's backing down. Bush would be left in better shape on the war and be able to concentrate on AIDS and the environment in hopes of salvaging his legacy.

    Cheney is scheduled this summer for surgery to replace his pacemaker, which needs new batteries. So if the president is willing, and Republicans are able, they have a convenient reason to replace him: doctor's orders. And I'm sure the the vice president would also like to spend more time with his ever-expanding family.

    The writer is co-host, with John Meacham, of On Faith, an online conversation about religion.
  2. Edward

    Edward Senior Member

    Apr 7, 2005
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    While I do not like Cheney I think the suggestion of Ms. Quinn borders on treason and a violation of the Constitution which provides that the manner for removing the President, and Vice President is through impeachment. I will now address a few of her comments to prove that she is a retard. I want to be clear that I am not defending the bastard Cheney but this woman is a conniving bitch and her article borders on treason. That there are imbeciles like Quinn in the Republican Party saddens me and for that matter Cheney may be the worst Vice President in our history but that does not mean that her suggestion is acceptable especially since it is unconstitutional (which is something Republicans are quite good at suggesting and doing).

    This isn't a question at all and I cannot believe that Republicans would even consider it a question since the "how" of removing a Vice President is clear and that is through impeachment or his resigning. Even when it comes down to removal for cause such as inability to perform the duties of the office it is an issue of whether "Dick Cheney would willingly leave office or not." If he doesn't then Congress would have to impeach him. All this talk about how to remove the Vice President from office by Republicans shows that they do not understand the Constitution or the laws of this country. Anyone with a brain should understand that you cannot remove the President or Vice President except through impeachment unless they acquiesece to it.

    The one intelligent comment that Ms. Quinn has made so far is that it would not be easy to remove a sitting Vice President but she fails to mention how it would have to be done (i.e., he resigns or he is impeached).

    First, either Cheney would have to resign or Congress would have to impeach him and then the President would have to nominate a Vice President and he would have to be confirmed by a majority of the House and Senate which means that the Democrats will be deciding who the Vice President would be which would be stupid for Republicans to be in favor of. Where Quinn gets the idea that President Bush needs to be convinced to "make a change" is beyond me since he doesn't get to make the change. Now if anyone were to make the change it would be the Vice President or Congress. But of course Republicans are stupid to begin with and I can understand why one of them would suggest such a stupid idea. The view that Republicans have of the power of the President is simply ludicrous and this is the worst case of their idiocy. To suggest that the President could remove the Vice President or make a change is simply stupid. Anyone with even a basic understanding of the Constitution would realize how stupid this suggestion is because is isn't true. The President does not have the authority to remove a sitting Vice President.

    Ms. Quinn is an idiot since Giuliani, McCain, and Romney would never be confirmed by a majority of the House and Senate nor would any person who could beat the Democratic nominee in 2008 be confirmed by the Congress because both bodies have Democratic majorities. It is instead likely that Congress would simply stall until the November election in the hope that Bush would become incapaciated or die and then Nancy Pelosi would become President. :eusa_boohoo: In fact, if Republicans want to impeach Cheney they will have the support of Democrats in Congress and if Cheney wants to step down he will have the support of Democrats as well. But as for how likely a Bush nominee would be confirmed that is a different matter. It is more likely that Congress would simply refuse to confirm anyone Bush nominates knowing that Pelosi would succeed Bush if something were to happen to him. But, if Democrats were to decide to confirm a Presidential nominee for Vice President it would be very likely that they would not confirm a current candidate for President therefore Bush would be stupid to even nominate them.

    If any of those suggested by Quinn would be attractive to the Democratic Congress it would probably be Giuliani therefore of those Quinn suggests he would be the most attractive choice to the President. Romney, and McCain would never be confirmed by the Congress. There is not a single Democrat who would probably vote for that.

    Again, none of the current candidates for President would ever become Vice President under the retarded Quinn's scenario simply because the Democratic majorities in Congress would not confirm Bush's nomination of a presidential candidate whose a Republican. I am sure that Senator Clinton, Obama, Dodd, and many others would have a field day with other Democrats in Congress if they were to do that. This means that the person nominated would have to be a relative political disaster who would not be seen as a viable Republican candidate for President.

    Quinn is more of an idiot than I thought. It doesn't matter what Bush's base thinks of Romney's religion since Bush's base has no say in who will be chosen as Vice President under Quinn's scenario and for that matter Bush would have very little influence over that matter as well.

    That may well be but the Democrats in Congress don't like Freddie. :badgrin: Which means that Freddie isn't going to become Vice President under this scenario when there is a Democratic controlled Congress. :eusa_dance:

    I can't see Freddie doing that, instead I can hear him say, "For God's sake, push the Godd-mn button already or I will do it for you..." The Bush will let him do it and suck Freddie's cock as he is doing it.

    Now if the Vice President were to choose to resign (which I doubt he would) then the President would be in deep shit since he would be forced to go to Congress with any nominee for Vice President. Now Quinn needs to get a fucking clue since it is obvious she is a fucking retard who hasn't even bothered to read the Constitution.

Share This Page