To impeach Bush today, and have 60% of the people support it?
Or to let Bush finish his term, and have 95% of the people in 20 years agree he was the worst President in history?
2007-03-26 16:45:23 · 13 answers · asked by Longhaired Freaky Person 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It would be healthier for the government to leave us all alone.
2007-03-26 16:48:33 · answer #1 · answered by TheOnlyBeldin 7 · 8⤊ 0⤋
How about actually looking at more than just some poll of 1000 people or so. Actual scholar rankings of presidents place GWB number 22, just behind Clinton at 21. Historic scholars would be a far more accurate than some public opinion poll thank you very much.
Also, you realise that impeachment means to bring up on charges, not kick him out of office?
Take the blinders off and realise he isn't half as bad as a lot of Dems would like you to think he is. Is he a great president, no, but come on and do the research yourself.
One last note, a president has to has to have committed a crime for him to be impeached. That hasn't happened.
2007-03-26 23:53:01 · answer #2 · answered by Nate 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Most definitely the latter. Impeachments are very bad form, and dangerous to boot. We've had two (Clinton and Nixon)already in the last 33 years, though neither received the second "removal" vote.
And 60% support would be, Constitutionally, 6% shy of the necessary two-thirds needed to impeach. Congress mustn't listen to the people, of course. Just mentioning the obvious flaw in your statement.
2007-03-27 00:03:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Let him finish. Impeaching leaders sets a bad precedent. We get that chance every 4 years. That's enough.
2007-03-27 13:12:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually I like option 2. By 20 years he will have become more comfortable in prison from the war crimes and may be able to be released. He'll be in his 80's by then and probably harmless. Impeachment now may allow people to kind of forget by election day. Keeping him in and screwing up could result in a Democratic landslide. What a great bonus.
2007-03-26 23:55:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
First of all, I doubt your percentages on either.
Second, attempting to impeach a president without any scintilla of evidence that any crime has been committed would damage our democracy far more than people feeble-minded enough to think Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy are fit guardians of Freedom could ever comprehend.
2007-03-26 23:49:44 · answer #6 · answered by open4one 7 · 6⤊ 2⤋
Impeach the guy now. People are dying today and more will die tomorrow - and Bush keeps doing more damage the longer he has his misguided way.
2007-03-26 23:51:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
Or kick the liberals out of congress and ban them and their socialist ideals from this country? Yea I like that one the most.
2007-03-26 23:51:08 · answer #8 · answered by Bunz 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Neither would be healthy & neither will happen. What WOULD be healthy is for all longhaired freaks to move to Canada. That won't happen either.
2007-03-27 00:17:50 · answer #9 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
What are you going to Impeach him with, your nutty conspiracy theories? LOL
2007-03-26 23:50:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋