So long as Hastert is Speaker, there’ll be no Impeachment, and if he were to take the Presidency, it wouldn’t be worth it. But…
The Speaker of the House serves at the sufferance of a majority of the House, not the majority Party.
House Dems make an offer to Iowa Rep. Jim Leach: Bring in 14 more of your Republican colleagues, we’ll vote for you as Speaker, and split Committee chairs, governing as a coalition.
Then Impeach Cheney and Bush, with another of the “GOP in exile” group taking the Speaker slot. (With Leach leaving the House for the Presidency, it’d take one more House Republican at this point.)
While the scenario is attractive, surely there is a macheavellian alternative with far greater long term possibilities.
Any replacement would have the benefit for the Republicans of a honeymoon period up to the 2006 elections and an incumbent Republican candidate for President in 2008.
On the other hand Bush is now not so much a lame duck as a paraplegic one.Instead plan for a sea change in US politics when people realise that tax cuts and small government has deadly consequences. The analogy for 2008 with is with the start of the FDR Presidency.
This sounds a lot like the argument for a Nader 2004 vote.