Will Bush serve out his term?

Not do you want him to serve out his term. Not should he serve out his term.

Do you think he will serve out his term?

Just wondering what readers think, objectively.

And if he leaves office early, what about Cheney?

0 thoughts on “Will Bush serve out his term?

  1. I think it rather likely that he will.

    In simple terms, since it still seems less than likely that the Democrats will win the House, I can’t see articles of impeachment being seriously considered in the House Judiciary Committee, let alone on the floor of the House.

    Even if that were to happen, I think that a 2/3rds vote in the Senate to remove is currently impossible.

    Unless there is some revelation that goes well behind what we currently know, I can’t see enough support for removal to congeal.

    There is currently enough vagueness and enough “it is just fighting terrorism” logic in operation to make it likely that he will serve out his term.

    The Cheney situation is interesting, as if the President’s numbers keep going down (and they are at 29% in a poll released today), a radical move may be needed, and jettisoning Cheney might be considered to be such a move.

    I suspect, however, that it will be too little, too late.


  2. I think the “let’s impeach Bush crowd” is barking up the wrong tree, frankly. So the question of him leaving early is a moot point, IMHO. He’s unpopular because that’s the nature of media politics (I’m not speaking of bias, I’m speaking of the fact that his popularity can only go down if a free press is active) & the attrition of a lame duck president in his last term.

    I like the new Dixiecrat strategy, that actually has hope of nation-wide success, I think. Otherwise, the 2006 midterms might be a shock to Dems who’ve locked themselves in a small blue-state bubble (remember those blue/red county maps?!).

    I believe the focus on Bush was wrong in 2004, and it’s more wrong now. Voters didn’t want “anyone but Bush” in ’04 because they could imagine worse alternatives. The Dems did well in playing up Bush’s mistakes, but the Kerry campaign never gave many (including me) a sense of what he would do differently, or better.

    And since Bush can’t run in ’08, running “against Bush” in ’06 seems almost suicidal. As if the Dems are a one-trick pony. Because many people (like me) are lookig towards ’08. I’m using ’06 as a weathervane to see how the Dems are shaping up and what their long term plans are on national security issues (and I’m afraid of the Clintonesque “cut-and-run” strategy that worked so horribly in Somalia). Since someone else will run in ’08 as the GOP presidential candidate, the Dems have to start positioning themselves w/o referencing Bush. They have to use issues.

    If Bush is impeached (successfully or not), it’ll taint the Dems as little more than the anti-Bush party. That’s suicidal, IMHO. Because the momen Bush is gone, there goes the party platform and voters are left asking: “we know WHO you oppose, but WHAT do you stand FOR?”


  3. Dick Cheney should be committed to throwing out the first ball before every Washington Nationals game for the rest of his natural life. If he got the reception every night that he got on opening day, that would be punishment enough, in my opinion.

    Making a pilgrimage to boo Cheney at start of a Nationals game could become a national tradition like visiting monuments in the Capital Mall or visiting the Statue of Liberty.

    Seriously, I think it depends on what happens in November. If the Democrats retake the house, Bush could be impeached, but not convicted. I don’t think the numbers will be there under any circumstances for conviction.

    Anyway, it might be best to let Bush twist in the wind for the next two years and eight months and cement his place in history as the worst president ever.


  4. Bush is destroying the Republican majority and congress is blissfully going right along with him. The only way Bush would be impeached is if the Republicans in congress had a backbone. There is enough dust in the air obfuscating both Iraq WMD evidence and wire-tapping that nothing will ever come from them. However, Bush’s deliberate, willful, and malicious violation of his constitutional duties in regards to the border is clearly a violation of his oath and should lead to his impeachment. If only the congressional Republicans had guts…..


  5. I don’t see Bush being forced out early. I don’t see the low approval ratings translating into outright anger, and I doubt Democrats want to fight him on national security issues. Sadly, I think too many people will believe that the phone tapping is an acceptable measure.


  6. I think Bush is more likely to serve a third term than fail to serve out this one. Only for the duration of a “national emergency”, of course.


  7. As the post after this suggests, a Democratic takeover of the House currently looks fairly likely. As for getting 2/3 of the Senate for conviction, let’s not forget that Democrats in 1974 held only 56%. Yet Nixon resigned because he was losing copartisans. As for Clinton, the President retained high approval ratings, so there was no incentive for Senators to defect, quite apart from the justifiability of the impeachment charges themselves. Bush is unlikely to have either the cushion of popularity or that of what almost everyone can see as firvolous charges.

    So, while I agree that Democrats probably have to re-take the House for Bush to be unable to serve out his term, if they do retake the House, I think all bets are off.

    Perhaps I am naive in thinking that there remains a chance in America today that shedding light on corrpution and subversion of the constitution, circumventing of checks and balances, the incompetent prosection of an unnecessary war, and violations of civil liberties and democracy itself could ever transcend the partisan divide. Perhaps our constitutional “democracy” is not even that minimally healthy after all. And please note that I am not predicting that Bush will be out in 2007. I just do not think it is a certainty that he will still be there at the start of January, 2009–if Democrats win the House, and especially if they win by a now unexpectedly large margin.


  8. The ideological makeup of the Republican Party was much different in 1974 that it is in 2006. It is a much more ideologically lockstep party now. I don’t see many GOPers defecting in 2006, 2007 or 2008 like apparently would have happened in 1974. There were still moderates and liberals in the GOP then. They are almost all gone now.


  9. Jack L makes a valid point, of course. The GOP is indeed much more homogeneous than it was in 1974. However, I think that is far less the case in the Senate than in the House. I will admit I have no immediate evidence I can point to on that. Just a hunch based on broader constituencies and generally more competitive races.

    The Dems are also more homogeneous than they used to be. Just not to quite the extent as the GOP is. And in the Dem case, it is mostly due to their being much smaller now than thirty years ago and also encompassing less regional scope–i.e. less southern support. The remarkable thing about the GOP is it has become a near-majority party in the electorate and more homogeneous electoral coalition at the same time.


  10. Off hand, the only GOPers I could see defecting are Spector, Hegel, Collins and Snowe. Any others? I don’t see someone like McCain defecting. I think he’s more partisan than some think and he doesn’t want to upset the base of the party if he runs for president in ’08…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.