Bush’s poll numbers have been sliding since last July and continue to sink, even in polls conducted by administration friendly Fox News. Here is a link to Real Clear Politics latest compilation. Bush’s continued slide brings to mind the old question of buyer’s remorse.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

Note: CJ first provided this link and I’ve found it a useful tool for keeping a finger on the nation’s pulse.

Let me say upfront that I do not like tampering with the constitution regardless of whether the amendment involves gay marriage, school prayer, tenure of federal judges, etc. I would not support a constitutional amendment for a federal version of recall similar to the one in California. Recall would, in my opinion, create too much uncertainty, chaos and turmoil that would reverberate across the board in American life, including the stock market. On the other hand, I’m sick of both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. If the constitution already contained a recall provision, I would be the first in line to sign such a petition.

Questions for debate:

1. Do you favor a constitutional amendment that would set up the machinery for recalling elected federal officials and replacing them?

2. If a recall apparatus already existed in the Constitution, would you favor recalling Bush and/or Cheney?

Thanks for a provocative question.

Questions for debate:

1. Do you favor a constitutional amendment that would set up the machinery for recalling elected federal officials and replacing them?

No, but I might support something along the line of a “Vote of no confidence.” It might be nice if Congress could vote that the President was not providing effective leadership, and an off year election campaign would then fill out the remainder of the term. The incumbent would still have the ability to run if his party supported him.

2. If a recall apparatus already existed in the Constitution, would you favor recalling Bush and/or Cheney?

Here, I would like to see Bush removed from office, but the fact remains that I don’t really want to see Cheney installed as President. Aye, there’s the rub. It does though, feed into my current fantasy of what might happen if the Republicans get their dream ticket in 2008; the Hillary vs. Condi race that the talking heads keep bringing up. I can imagine Karl Rove as Condi’s campaign manager when someone asked her what she meant when she referred to George as her husband. "Dr. Rice, did you ever have sex with President Bush?" Karl Rove would step in to defend her with statements such as, “I have had a long intimate relationship with George W. Bush, and I am certain that he is not the kind of man who would cheat on his wife with another woman.” The term “lump in the bed” might be dragged into the race to infer that W had not been sexually active for awhile. References would be made to the fact that they had been surprised by the birth of their twins, etc.

If they really wanted to give Dr. Rice a chance at being on the ticket in 2008, Republicans would be pressuring Cheney to resign so that Condoleezza Rice could follow the Gerald Ford route into the Presidency. If she were Vice President by the fall elections, it might provide even more assurance that George W. Bush would not be impeached than having Cheney as Vice President. In that case, during the hearings to approve her appointment to be Vice President, Senators could ask George W. Bush the question. It would give him the opportunity to look taken aback, hem and haw, and finally answer. “To quote my predecessor, and I can honestly say this, ‘I did not have sex with that woman...’” (He could then leak to the press later that he had never even met Monica Lewinski.)

Realistically, the problem with impeaching George W. Bush is one of who would replace him, and the fact that if it isn’t done soon, a bad replacement might be eligible to serve a full two terms running as the incumbent. If a recall were possible, the polls indicate that the Presidents approval rating is slipping into the 35% range. That alone would be enough to fill the malls with people circulating petitions they had downloaded from the Internet. If it were a successful campaign, the next President wouldn’t even have a honeymoon period, I would predict the recall petitions would be posted on the net as soon as he or she was sworn in.

I can't support such an amendment. Not only do I agree with you that the Constitution should only be amended for very important reasons, I also think that such a recall system would create more problems than it would solve. (Let me say here that I support the kind of recall system that many states have for state officials. However, the federal situation is not quite comparable.)

For one thing, there are many state officials elected by the public. Since there are so many, it's important to have a way to get rid of the few bad apples in the barrel. On the other hand, how many federal officials are elected by all the American voters? Unless I am very mistaken, the answer is two. Methods already exist to censure and to remove the President and/or the Vice-President. It seems to me that adding a recall system would only add complications to the present system, and would rarely, if ever, accomplish anything.

I compare the call for a recall system to the constant calls for impeachment for every President. Look how little the impeachment system has actually been used. It seems to me that a recall system would be even less likely to actually remove the President or the Vice-President from office than the impeachment system.

In general, I think it's a good thing that it is difficult to remove the President and the Vice-President from office. The Executive Branch of the government requires a certain degree of stability; less than the Judicial Branch, but more than the Legislative Branch.

No matter how much I may disagree with the gentlemen who now hold the two most powerful offices in the world, I would prefer to let their time run out, and then get back to business.

1. Do you favor a constitutional amendment that would set up the machinery for recalling elected federal officials and replacing them?

As I said in the introduction, I do not favor an amendment providing for recall and replacement of federal office holders.


2. If a recall apparatus already existed in the Constitution, would you favor recalling Bush and/or Cheney?

On the other hand, I would most certainly sign a petition to remove both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. While such a move might create chaos, I’m not sure it would be any worse than the almost weekly revelations about the gang in the White House. Philip Roth should write a sequel to his novel—Our Gang—(about the Nixon administration). I’m sure he could write something equally amusing about the current administration’s misanthropes.

I predict the scandals to come will make the current ones look minor. If recall were possible, I don’t think it would be any more traumatic for the nation than what the current crew is doing. I’m not sure we can weather three more years without a regime change.

1. Do you favor a constitutional amendment that would set up the machinery for recalling elected federal officials and replacing them?

Yes, I would approve of recall proceedings for any office holder who demonstrably acted in a manner demonstrably (no this is not a typo, I need both "demonstrablies" present in my preferred concept description) contrary to:

1. the principles of the Preamble to the Constitution
2. the Bill of Rights, and
3. the swearing-in oath for a juror, ie to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in his/her govt. service.

I believe these are the "meta-rules" we all live by/for/with, but that are not considered "by the powers we let go of" in what seem to be the emerging, but to me vague, "rule of law" concepts.

2. If a recall apparatus already existed in the Constitution, would you favor recalling Bush and/or Cheney?

If it's the above apparatus , then they go!

The bar for recalling a federal elected official should be very high. I would suggest that the required first step would be impeachment by congress. A subsequent automatic recall election would then allow the electorate to decide if they want that person to continue in the job or replace them. That would have the added benefit of giving meaning to the impeachment process.

Our recent debacle in California should be the model for what not to do, where gathering signatures in the parking lot at Wal-Mart from people that never voted overturned a just-held election and replaced a professional politician with a body-building movie star.

And yes, Bush and Cheney should be subject to impeachment and thus to a recall vote.

No, I do not favor a recall amendment but, if our Republic recovers from the current administration and congress, we need to find some way to address the likelihood that some future one party cabal might seize control of the government. The problem, of course, is that we will have to go through Congress to do this. Even if the Democrats get control many of them will remain wedded to the current system that helps protect incumbency.

If it were possible to enact fundamental reforms, I would favor reforms that strengthened minority representation in the Congress and that strengthened the Congress' power against the president. Maybe an amendment, that required candidates for the House to run at large within their states with winners being decided according to the proportion of the vote parties received and the rank of the candidate on party lists, as they are in some parliamentary systems, would open the Congress up to minorities like true liberals and libertarians and reduce the pork barrel mentality of so many House members. Perhaps this could be combined with some provision for a no confidence vote that would require a new presidential election. Instant runoff voting for all federal offices would also be a great reform.

However, without improving the quality of our national discourse, no reform will do much to revive our Republic. The concentration of news outlets within the hands of a few corporations where the real purpose is to sell products and promote the political interests of the corporation is deadly to democracy. Perhaps some reforms here will be possible with a Democratic Congress and maybe that's what we need to concentrate on. Removing the dominance of big money political contributions is also fundamental to any reform.

Of course I voted in the poll to recall the current criminals from office.

1.) I think that would lead to a witch-hunt of political arenas and I would not be able to support that. I am more in favor of a vote of No Confidence where the Congress (heck, we're a republic anyway) can call out a leader for removal.

In a sense, I support the Congress doing it, but where is the line drawn for the public to do so?

2.) At this point, Bush has done so much damage that I would prefer to let him run his course and then exit the stage. I do not think much in the way of time will be achieved by removing him today. And if we removed just Bush, we must deal with Cheney. Bush is a destructive toddler. Let's leave him alone and eventually it will be nap time.

If congress could impeach the president without him somehow breaking the law, then whats to stop congress from getting rid of him just because he's not in the majority party?

The direct election of the president is one of the things I like about the American system, and a call of no confidence could completely negate the effectiveness of that direct election.

I've always been a big fan of the recall option at the local and state levels. I believe that it does serve as a valuable tool for citizens at that level. I would not favor an amendment that would set it up at the federal level. It's one thing when your neighbor wants to recall the conty assessor over his property taxes, it's quite another when a tool of the citizenry would be used and abused by political parties and interest groups whow ould pay people to go out and get the alleged bum out. It is for that reason, that I would oppose such a thing.



I don't, it's clear that while people are not at all thrilled with him, they aren't excited enough to give him the boot. Polls show a trend, but the average apolitical poll respondent is a dolt, so I'm not certain you can base much off of that.

The problem is that Congress is most of the problem. The President isn't writing the laws. Congress isn't either these days unfortunately. When 98% of incumbents are reelected, corruption reigns. We need to fix the districting gerrymandering. Besides, isn't what you propose called impeachment?

1. Do you favor a constitutional amendment that would set up the machinery for recalling elected federal officials and replacing them? No. Federal officials spend enough time campaigning.

2. If a recall apparatus already existed in the Constitution, would you favor recalling Bush and/or Cheney? No. Federal officials spend enough time campaigning.

Re Bush and Cheney, we'll, who really cares about the VP [recall Spiro Agnew, Dan Quayle, and Al Gore], so I'll leave Cheney out of this one, and so, re Dubya, well, (1) he's not a criminal, (2) liberation of oppressed peoples does not constitute "damage" to our country though such nevertheless does come with a cost in rather precious human lives; and (3) oppressed peoples include persons who are not white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, who don't drive Mercedes, who drink at some place other than Starbucks, etc..

Here is how ridiculous the idea is:

http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer [and please note the reference to that voice of reason known to humanity as Ramsey Clark]

http://impeachbush.tv/ [and please note the reference to "refuse illegal war", which I read as meaning, I'm so hedonistic and self-absorbed that I could care less about the rest and would never ever think of putting myself in harm's way for purposes of improving their condition]

http://impeachbushcoalition.blogspot.com/ [and please note the proposed indictment, specifically, the reference to "Allowing the disclosure of the name of Valerie Plame Wilson," as if her name wasn't otherwise in the public domain [with her being the lawful wife of a public official] and as if any intelligence agency worth its weight in salt didn't otherwise have her on the "suspect" list given that even the homeless guy with his earthly possessions in a shopping cart could have watched her drive into the parking lot of CIA headquarters in Langley on any number of occasions [the homeless guy would be more covert].

And, lastly, re Dubya's approval rating, the number is just about right, given that, according to CNN [ http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=...t+find+Iraq+map ]:

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- After more than three years of combat and nearly 2,400 U.S. military deaths in Iraq, nearly two-thirds of Americans aged 18 to 24 still cannot find Iraq on a map, a study released Tuesday showed."

So, 2/3 can't find Iraq on a map and the other 1/3 approve of Dubya. And, yes, by all means, let us have the Dems return, those who brought us the modern American system of public education.

I find this to be an interesting topic in general, considering the opinion of the American people. I remember sitting in political science class 7 or 8 years ago in college, arguing the merits of Ronald Reagan and the impact that the Reagan era would have on the world, particularly post-cold war. It seemed that the sentiment at the time isn't nearly as Pro-Reagan then as it is now, the change particularly happening post Reagan's death. Many experts say that Reagan was one of the best Presidents of all time, but 8-10 years ago, people touted "Reaganomics" as the worst thing to hit the country's economy, etc, etc...

I believe that if pill popping Kennedy's, and womanizing and conspiracy-theory murdering Clintons can hold office, who cares if a guy that can't really put sentences together hangs around? When you consider the notion that Lincoln probably wasn't the most popular guy in the South, that approval ratings are simply a function of polling companies that historically have been wrong (i.e. the past two elections), and that history generally paints a picture once actions have come to fruition, I'd have to vote that no recall be allowed.

The notion that Congress or a popular vote would allow a President to be ousted basically states that history might take a different course, and the general consensus would allow for said change. I don't trust that my co-workers, neighbors, or even family would have an educated enough opinion to make such a change. Even if congress made the decision, they typically follow what will get them re-elected, basically as politicians are all generally designed to pander to their constituency.

I believe that our government has enough checks and balances to stop a rogue President, and that even if you're now Anti-War, consider that Congress has to vote to wage war. These stop-gaps allow for no one man to carry the torch for a nation, and if a President doesn't prove to be the best thing since sliced bread (i.e. Jimmy Carter), the nation will move on and hopefully make better decisions in the future.

1. Do you favor a constitutional amendment that would set up the machinery for recalling elected federal officials and replacing them?

Yes, but I would also allow it to recall non elected "officials", such as supreme court justices. I have special trouble with the interpretation of the supreme court justices being allowed such long terms. I'd rather have something that limited them to "good functional behavior", and would accept medical rules for average age degradation of faculties to limit their terms. Also, they often, to my mind, live values no longer representative of the general populace that comes with their age. That's not to fault them, it's to show our system being out of synch with our evolving selves, e.g. slavery, women's rights, etc.

2. If a recall apparatus already existed in the Constitution, would you favor recalling Bush and/or Cheney?

Yes, both. Especially with the above statement added!

IMHO, what we are doing here is questioning the wisdom of our country's founders. They gave extensive and thoughful consideration to the principles incorporated into our consitution. I don't think it's a good idea to be so quick to incorporate changes that are most likely inspired by emotion. The Bush Administration is not unique among Presidential Administrations. Many presidents have gone through and faced contraversial times and issues. It is in some ways arrogant to presume that Bush or Clinton or any other recent president has had problems never faced before. What some say about Bush today, was said about FDR and even Lincoln. Sometimes it is suprising to learning these facts, only because we are ignorant of them. How many have had in depth training in history; not I. My interest matured long after my formal education ended. I'm no expert on early American or Revolutionary history, but I have done some reading and have a keen interest in it. What I see is that our founders not only are not irrelevant given over 200 years of time, but considered and discussed the very issues we think about today. The nature of man has not changed, and our founders were well versed in history, philosophy and politics. Study for yourself, and you'll be amazingly surprised at their breadth of knowledge of potential corruption in government, that is absolutely applicable today.

I have the greatest respect for the founders and the document they produced. The world has changed drastically since they devised the document. Are you saying that their wisdom, like that of other mortals, is beyond questions? If so, I would suggest your approach might be tenable from a theoretical position, but from a practical standpoint it is too narrow.

The question involved here is hypothetical. I clearly stated that I did not favor an amendment providing for recall.

Questions for debate:

1. Do you favor a constitutional amendment that would set up the machinery for recalling elected federal officials and replacing them?

2. If a recall apparatus already existed in the Constitution, would you favor recalling Bush and/or Cheney?

So very tempting...As one who believes America is only truly safe is when Congress is either gridlocked or on vacation, the idea of them locked up constantly trying to recall the opposition sounds Sweet.

but in the end the partisanship would get so nasty the country would suffer.

No recall is not a good idea. y'all just try and actually think about your vote for a change y'hear

I'm trying to find the relevance of this response. Help me out here. Did I not state my opinion? And if my approach may be tenable from a theoretical position to a hypothetical question, where have I erred?