Kevin Phillips, who I believe is still a Republican, surveys the various options available to those of us who are troubled by the prospect of enduring the current national regime until January 2009, and comes to this conclusion:
“Which brings me to the remedy sought a few years back when Californians got tired of their governor, Gray Davis. Under state law, they were able to mount a recall effort that took away his job. To set up a simular federal mechanism, a constitutional amendment would seem necessary, and that could not happen overnight. Still, with impeachment losing credibility as a constitutiional remedy, the possibilility of having an “incompetent” president with a 35% job approval rating in office for almost three more years represents enough of a threat to an unhappy and beleaguered United States that a wide-ranging debate is in order.”
-from The Huffington Post.
I thought impeachment was gaining steam, not losing it.
Of course we won’t know for sure until November.
I think that the notion of ‘recalling’ the president, simply because of a low job approval rating, is a bad idea. One can argue that the president should be stopped from causing more harm, but without doing anything illegal, regardless of how immoral the president has been, he or she should remain in office.
However, Bush has committed several illegal acts while in office, so there are plenty of grounds for impeachment.
I dunno, I think if two thirds of the population want to recall a president, it should be possible. I doubt that you could ever get that many to agree so it sets the standard high. It would take a constitutional amendment though and that is not likely — impeachment would be easier.
Might just as well be done with it and move into the modern world with a parlimentary system.
I look at this idea as another way to encourage “wide-ranging debate” among those who may not be interested in impeachment.