# Dick Cheney's Hotel Requests



## 14395 (Mar 10, 2004)

https://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0322061cheney1.html


----------



## jeansguy (Jul 29, 2003)

That seems pretty tame actually. A lot of it seems to make sense.

If the hotel is leaving a gift(which is probably pretty common), the security detail must know before hand so that there are no packages wrapped in plain brown paper on the veeps bed. In addition, the lights being turned on will make it safer for the Secret Service to sweep the room. The water/pop/coffee thing is fine too, as are the newspapers.

Fox news is a little strange, you think the guy would know how to use a remote control.

www.thegenuineman.com


----------



## Gong Tao Jai (Jul 7, 2005)

Cheney seems to be getting the Dan Quayle treatment: he's getting raked over the coals now for every little thing. I can't stand the guy, but that list isn't too unreasonable.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Raked over the coals for every little thing? Because his hotel requests show up on the smoking gun? Hardly.

Now, shooting a man in the face under extremely questionable circumstances and then refusing to face the press - I don't count his cozy little chat on Fox - means that a few questions are likely to be asked.

Of course, when a man's credibility is as shot as Dick Cheney's - nuclear weapons in Iraq, Saddam's ties to al Qaeda, "We'll be greeted as liberators, etc, etc, etc - then he should probably expect to be questioned on every damn thing he says.

------------------


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

If I were a television set not tuned to Fox News I would be very afraid--Cheney just might pull an Elvis on me.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by jeansguy_
> 
> That seems pretty tame actually. A lot of it seems to make sense.
> 
> ...


That is a bit strange. He gets his own ice, but he can't change the channel?

The gift thing reminds me of this Jack Handey quote:

_I think a good gift for the President would be a chocolate revolver. and since he is so busy, you'd probably have to run up to him real quick and give it to him._


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

As such lists go, I'd have to say that one is basically unremarkable. 

Funny that before he became President Bush's VP, and thus, the bogeyman of the left, Cheney was considered a 'moderate' Republican. I like him.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Relayer_
> 
> Cheney was considered a 'moderate' Republican. I like him.


By whom?

He has always been a hard right republican, just look at his voting record:

* He opposed federal funding for abortions -- with no exceptions in the case of rape or incest.
* He voted against the Equal Rights Amendment for women, along with 146 other members of Congress in 1983.
* On Education, he consistently opposed funding of Head Start and voted against creating the Department of Education.
* Cheney was raised in Wyoming and opposes, as many Westerners do, gun control limits.
* He was one of just 21 members of Congress, in December of 1985, to vote against a ban on armor piercing bullets -- called cop killer bullets.
* Three years later he was one of only four members of the House voting against a ban on plastic guns that could slip through airport security machines undetected. The National Rifle Association did not oppose this ban.
* Also in 1988, Cheney voted to scrap a proposed national seven-day waiting period on handgun purchases.
* On the environment, Cheney opposed refunding the Clean Water Act. He voted to postpone sanctions slapped on air polluters that failed to meet pollution standards.
* And he voted against legislation to require oil, chemical and other industries from making public records of emissions known to cause cancer, birth defects and other chronic diseases.
* Dick Cheney consistently voted to raise military spending. He also supported aid to the Nicaraguan rebels, even after a moratorium on funding was passed.
* During his 11 years in Congress, Cheney was moderate only in his personal style, getting along with Democrats and Republicans.
* As for his votes, Cheney consistently received very high marks from conservative groups ranking his record.

------------------


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Regarding your cut & paste...

If you choose to take at face value everything you read at "Uncle Ralph's "ANGRY LIBERAL" Tree House" and other such sites, (without regard to examination or understanding of related issues) then I understand how you could feel the way you do.

You are pre-disposed to feel that way, and that's ok with me.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Relayer_
> 
> Regarding your cut & paste...
> 
> ...


You don't believe that Dick Cheney made those votes? Or you don't think that voting against, say, the banning of cop killer bullets or abortion in cases of rape makes you a hard right conservative?

Why don't you address the issues instead of directing your foolish comments at me?

------------------


----------



## 14395 (Mar 10, 2004)

duplicate


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

If the liberals are successful in regaining control of the congress next year, they will have the ability to follow Senator Finegold's lead and start impeachment proceedings against Bush.

Now lets see, if that comes about, I wonder who will succeed Bush?

Carpe Diem


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

gmac,

Against my better judgement, I'll give you a chance on one of the issues you chose. You get one shot to make your case on it.

* He opposed federal funding for abortions -- with no exceptions in the case of rape or incest.

No, I don't believe voting against *federal funding of abortion* makes him a 'hard right conservative'. I believe it shows his correct understanding of the function of the federal government. I agree with him that the federal govenrment's role in social issues should be limited. (I also hope he would have voted against federal government funding of any other 'medical procedures'.)

Can you exlain why there should be *federal funding*?


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

I think impeachment proceedings are almost a certainty if the Democrats take control of both houses of congress - how far they go and whether they are a smart idea is another question. They would do well to remember the fools the republicans made of themselves when trying to impeach Clinton.

The charges against Bush are legitimate and impeachment hearings may be the only way that we will ever know the truth about how the Iraq disaster started.

But if Bush goes down there is no way that Cheney can survive - no way in the world. Who is next up after that?

------------------


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

All seems pretty reasonable to me. When you travel a lot and you are very busy, you don't want to have to fiddle with each hotel's different TV system and be looking for stuff. That wastes too much time. It's a lot more efficient to have the advance crew arrange everything to be the same everywhere you go.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Relayer_
> 
> gmac,
> 
> Against my better judgement, I'll give you a chance on one of the issues you chose. You get one shot to make your case on it.


Yeah, I don't think issuing ultimatums is the way to go here. I can make my case on any of the issues I chose and I will take as many shots as I want to do it.

That be OK with you?

------------------


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

As said earlier, you can believe (and behave) however you like.

You threw out a challenge, I took it and threw out my own challenge. Apparently, you have decided it wiser to take up an attitude rather than the challenge. Again, ok with me.

Anyway, you should try to look a little deeper into the issues than the slanted talking points on angry leftwing sites.

I wish you only the best.

(My apologies to all for participating in the hijacking of an originally innocuous post.)


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Relayer_
> 
> gmac,
> 
> ...


But I'll answer you anyway.......

I believe there should be federal funding of abortion in the case of rape or incest because to ban or deny such treatment is discrimatory.

If a woman chooses to carry to term, Medicaid (and other federal insurance programs) offer her assistance for the necessary medical care. But if the same woman needs to end her pregnancy, Medicaid (and other federal insurance programs) will not provide coverage for her abortion, even if continuing the pregnancy will harm her health. The government should not discriminate in this way. It should not use its dollars to intrude on a poor woman's decision whether to carry to term or to terminate her pregnancy and selectively withhold benefits because she seeks to exercise her right of reproductive choice in a manner the right wing disfavours.

------------------


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Relayer_
> 
> As said earlier, you can believe (and behave) however you like.


My behaviour has been fine. It was you who started personally attacking me - or did you forget already.



> quote:_Originally posted by Relayer_
> You threw out a challenge, I took it and threw out my own challenge. Apparently, you have decided it wiser to take up an attitude rather than the challenge. Again, ok with me.


Au contraire! See my "one shot" above.....

------------------


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's hard to gauge how someone stands based on their voting record, as bills are rarely single-issue. It's a common political trick:

1. Introduce a reasonable sounding bill, say, enacting a seven day waiting period on handguns.

2. Tack on a rider that makes it illegal to buy "assault rifles" whatever those are (my Ruger 10/22 was once considered an assault rifle, because it had a relatively short barrel. Lunacy.)

3. Conservatives vote against the bill (though they may have voted for it in it's original form)

4. Liberals can now say that conservatives are against waiting periods for handguns.

The same trick is played the other way around, with conservatives putting entitlement program cuts into bills funding VA hospitals and such. Nasty business, politics.

Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Back to the original topic, I'm not certain I agree with the original premise of Fox News and the NYT balancing each other out. The NYT remains, despite its recent troubles, a highly respected newspaper and news gathering organisation, whatever you think of its editorial page.

Fox News has a fairly small news staff, few overseas bureaux and seems happier to put rent-a-quote personalities on in the knowledge they will make outlandish comments regarding liberals - they support terrorists, they hate America, etc. which will hearten the base.

------------------


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by jbmcb_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Understood JCMCB - the republicans pulled this on Kerry during the last presidential election to make him look like some anti-military liberal.

But I would say that Cheney's record is so consistently on the far right fringe that it goes beyond the circumstances you described.

------------------


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Intrepid_
> 
> If the liberals are successful in regaining control of the congress next year, they will have the ability to follow Senator Finegold's lead and start impeachment proceedings against Bush.
> 
> ...


Bush has absolutely bulletproof anti-asassination/anti-impeachment protection so long as Dick Cheney is next-in-line.

Train your eye! Then train your brain to trust your eye.


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> * He opposed federal funding for abortions -- with no exceptions in the case of rape or incest.
> * He voted against the Equal Rights Amendment for women, along with 146 other members of Congress in 1983.
> ...


Wow, that is incredible, I agree with his position on ever single one of those issues or votes! I wish Cheney was president.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow. You have taken the issue of discrimination to a new level. The fourteenth amendment certainly does not contemplate whether the federal government can discriminate based on decisions made by the individual.

Taking your logic a bit further, you could argue that the federal government discriminates against bank robbers by putting them in jail. If a poor person decides to rob a bank, why should he be punished because he made a decision that others disagree with. Now, I am not saying that robbing and aborting are equal, just that the government (the people) has every right to choose what it will pay for and accept.

I agree with Cheney on most of these votes and find him to be far more qualified than Bush in every way.


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

Perhaps the real solution might be to actually make people pay for the babies they create.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> 
> I agree with Cheney on most of these votes and find him to be far more qualified than Bush in every way.


Well, we agree on something.......

------------------


----------



## PennGlock (Mar 14, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vladimir Berkov_
> 
> Wow, that is incredible, I agree with his position on ever single one of those issues or votes! I wish Cheney was president.


You and me both, Vladimir.


----------



## msh14 (Nov 11, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Gmac, seeing as you often start petty arguements by demanding a source for every fact a member posts, I'm going to go ahead and ask for you to provide a link to the full text of the different bills to which each of those claims refers as well as a source verifying Cheney's vote on each of the respective bills.

It's tough work but in keeping with the same standards you've asked of others we simply can not let AAAC fall to such barbaric standards as unsourced statements.

I'm afraid if you can't find all those sources we simply can not continue to discuss the points.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by msh14_
> Gmac, seeing as you often start petty arguements by demanding a source for every fact a member posts, I'm going to go ahead and ask for you to provide a link to the full text of the different bills to which each of those claims refers as well as a source verifying Cheney's vote on each of the respective bills.
> 
> It's tough work but in keeping with the same standards you've asked of others we simply can not let AAAC fall to such barbaric standards as unsourced statements.
> ...


Unfortunately your statement is based on a misconception. I presume you are referring to the thread where certain posters claimed that the USA was the smartest nation because, well, because they said so. And when asked why they might think that way they responded, well, because it's obvious.

You might have noted that I didn't ask them to provide conclusive evidence, merely some form of argument to support their thesis. I didn't demand a source for those facts, just the existence of an argument of some sort.

Do you see the difference?

As for starting petty arguments, it takes two to tango as they say.

But just to make you feel nice here is a link to the office of the clerk of the US house of representatives:

happy reading!

------------------


----------



## msh14 (Nov 11, 2005)

No misconception at all gmac. An exact quote of yours from that smartest nation thread is in fact "I would question the validity of any claim made with no supporting evidence". Don't try to bend things now. In other threads you've demanded people source their claims. I'm turning that back on you.

While you try to wiggle out of this you're invariably finding what others have already encountered. The facts you presented are probably verifiable...just like the one present by those you harassed. That doesn't change the fact that it's still a pain when that annoying guy comes along and demands sources on everything. 

So there you have it. You can either be humble and apologize in light of the lesson you've learned when your silliness is turned against you or you can continue to try to quibble. Unfortunately your previous actions lead me to fear that you are far too prideful to acknowledge your previous overzealousness.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by msh14_
> 
> No misconception at all gmac. An exact quote of yours from that smartest nation thread is in fact "I would question the validity of any claim made with no supporting evidence". Don't try to bend things now.


That's right. I claimed Dick Cheney was a right wing hard liner. I then presented the evidence to back that up.

What part don't you get?

Go back and compare to the claims made in that other thread. See the difference?

No? Not my fault, buddy boy!

------------------


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by PennGlock_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 And now we are three.

*https://www.CustomShirt1.com

Kabbaz-Kelly & Sons Fine Custom Clothiers
* Bespoke Shirts & Furnishings * Zimmerli Swiss Underwear **
* Alex Begg Cashmere * Pantherella Socks **​


----------



## msh14 (Nov 11, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I see no sources. No evidence. According to your previous logic, you're just the asserting things. Show your sources.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by msh14_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I see evidence:



> quote:He has always been a hard right republican, just look at his voting record:
> 
> * He opposed federal funding for abortions -- with no exceptions in the case of rape or incest.
> * He voted against the Equal Rights Amendment for women, along with 146 other members of Congress in 1983.
> ...


and I see sources:



> quote:here is a link to the office of the clerk of the US house of representatives:


----------



## daltx (Jan 19, 2006)

gmac,

Assuming the information in your profile is correct, I find it interesting that you take such an interest in American politics, namely bashing American politicians. I am always amused by Canadian's ability to attack America while hiding behind it at the same time. 

In your argument for the Federal funding of abortions you ignored one of Relayer's most important points. He said that he was opposed to any federal funding for medical procedures. This would include the delivery of babies. Yet you chose to ignore than and claimed he was discriminating by only refusing funding for abortions. 

Opposing abortion does not make someone in this country a hard rightwinger. The country is very evenly divided on this issue and I find it hard to believe that 50% of the county is comprised of hard rightwingers. Maybe all of the cold weather in Canada had clouded your judgement.


----------



## Grayishhues (Feb 25, 2006)

Wow Dalt,
Heated political disucussion can be interesting and quite entertaining. A stab at someones nation can not.

The sound of silence, is deafening.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by daltx_
> 
> gmac,
> 
> ...


 One doesn't suppose it's much use pointing out that gmac also listed eleven _other _ reasons why Mr Cheney may be considered a hard right-winger, aside from abortion. But even regarding abortion, no one is saying that Mr Cheney is hard right because he opposes abortion, but because he opposes national funding for abortion _even in the cases of rape and incest_. That, my friend, is an extreme stance, and it's not one of the left variety.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> I think impeachment proceedings are almost a certainty if the Democrats take control of both houses of congress - how far they go and whether they are a smart idea is another question. They would do well to remember the fools the republicans made of themselves when trying to impeach Clinton.
> 
> ...


The Constitution could be a bit of a problem with the approach to impeaching the President and the Vice President in a package deal.

Carpe Diem


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

Next in line after the VP is the speaker of the House. I believe that this would ultimately be found unconstitutional by the Supremes and the post would go to a cabinet member. 

Anyway, I'm generally with AK, Vladimir, and PennGlock. Though I tend to be a little less big business than Cheney and a bit more hard-right on everything else.

CT


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> Next in line after the VP is the speaker of the House. I believe that this would ultimately be found unconstitutional by the Supremes and the post would go to a cabinet member.


Maybe I'm missing something here, but why exactly would this be found unconstitutional?


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I would disagree. If you look at the views of the American populace, support for any federally funded abortion is extremely far left.

As far as the succession of the president being somehow unconstitutional... It is laid out in the constitution, and therefore constitutional. However, a new President would be able to appoint a new VP, who would then be next in line.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> As far as the succession of the president being somehow unconstitutional... It is laid out in the constitution, and therefore constitutional. However, a new President would be able to appoint a new VP, who would then be next in line.


You and I know that it is constitutional, although the appointment of the VP is subject to approval of both houses of Congress. What I'm interested in is how someone could claim that the process would be found unconstitutional.


----------



## msh14 (Nov 11, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> I see sources:
> 
> 
> ...


Don't embarass yourself. Presenting that as your source would be the equivalent of writing a book and then presenting your citations as "go to my local library and you can find the books I used".


----------



## daltx (Jan 19, 2006)

I agree with iammatt on what constitutes far right. Evidently JLPWC has a different definition of extreme than most of the country. I assume anyone who supports the war in Iraq is also a right wing lunatic?

Grayishues,

You have me confused. Where did I attack the nation of Canada? I said it was cold in Canada. If this is untrue I will promplty apologize. I also said that Canada hides behind the military power of the USA. This is not an attack but merely an observation. I have spent a good amount of time in Canada and find it to be a beautiful place with friendly people. 

I now have a question for you. Where was your righteous indignation over people "attacking a nation" when gmac was dragging your country through the mud? Unfortunately it seems that the left in America today applauds anyone who attacks America. This can be evidenced by the recent trips of many lefties to visit Hugo Chavez, the leader in America hating.


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Speaker of the House could be incentivized to launch a coup attempt, in essence, by pushing for the impeachment and removal of both the pres. and vice pres. Somewhere around the impeachment debate I heard an explanation from a constitutional scholar, but I now forget. Maybe someone else may chime in.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

I'm certainly no scholar, but if the succession is spelled out in the Constitution, then it could not be found unconstitutional.

Now, if it was determined that the Speaker committed high crimes, then I suppose he/she might subequently be impeached.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by I_Should_Be_Working_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think that you are correct here. If I recall correctly, originally, the VP was simply the second leading vote getter for President. Would he, as loser, not have had the "incentive" as president of the senate to push for impeachment? This article of the Constitution really deals with simultaneous deaths or incapacitations (more likely in earlier times) than simultaneous impeachments.



> quote:I'm certainly no scholar, but if the succession is spelled out in the Constitution, then it could not be found unconstitutional.


Pretty much exactly right. If the constitution was amended to say that every American needed to wear pink too-toos it would be the law of the land.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by daltx_
> 
> gmac,
> 
> Assuming the information in your profile is correct, I find it interesting that you take such an interest in American politics, namely bashing American politicians. I am always amused by Canadian's ability to attack America while hiding behind it at the same time.


You will note your leap of logic from accusing me of bashing American politicians - guilty m'lud - to attacking America as a nation.

America is a great country and I have always enjoyed my time there - though I wasn't that taken by Minneapolis.....

Dick Cheney is one of the foulest liars to ever hold office in your country and he has the blood of thousands on his hands. May he rot in hell.

See the difference?

------------------


----------



## BYoung (Jun 24, 2005)

Hmm... Not sure I should wade in here, but...

Regarding the initial post:
The list of requirements is normal. As someone else already pointed out, there are major security concerns regarding gifts, as well as official "Thank You" cards that need to be written by the VP's staff. Regarding the ice machine, he probably wouldn't be going to get ice, but his personal staffer would need to know where it was.

Regarding the debate that has kicked up:



> quote:_Originally posted by daltx_
> 
> gmac,
> 
> Assuming the information in your profile is correct, I find it interesting that you take such an interest in American politics, namely bashing American politicians. I am always amused by Canadian's ability to attack America while hiding behind it at the same time.


How is discussing Mr. Cheney's voting record, even critically, attacking America? *I* am always amused by folks that personalize an entire nation into one person. I am well aware it happens both ways, but it is pretty simple thinking, and the world is complex.

If you notice, the only key US political figure people think less of right now than Mr. Bush, is Mr. Cheney. Their job approval rating 34% and 30% respectively, on the latest Harris poll, March '06. Offering strong support of him is evidence in itself you have "drunk the kool-aid", but I'm glad to see people that actually pay attention and care.

The boogie man of impeachment is a fund raising gimmick of Mr. Rove and company. The Democrats wouldn't suddenly grow a backbone if they won either house. They have no interest in supporting Mr. Feingold now and have offered him none. They learned plenty watching the Republicans slit their own throat by impeaching Mr. Clinton. It cost Mr. Gingrich his job, and the total number of Republican seats in the house went down by five that year. But the GOP needs to do something to encourage the donors and voters. Making your opponent out as extreme is usually the answer, since fear is such a powerful motivator. (Kind of like the Dem's use Cheney, oops, I've gone full circle)

BTW: If I was Canadian, I would take a very keen interest in American politics, as our nations are strongly intertwined. For example, our biggest foreign oil source is Canada, for which we return the favor by sharing our air pollution with them.

Viva Debate!
Brian


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The problem, as I recall, is that certain aspects are not spelled out so well. Sure, if the capital were attacked and leaders killed, there is a set line of succession. However, if Congress attempted to remove both the President and the Vice-President simultaneously, there would be a problem. This was the scenario someone suggested earlier. Another example, what if a President were removed, the choices for VP by the succeeding President (former VP) were refused by the Senate, and Congress began further impeachment proceedings against the new President. I don't believe our constitution covers all situations.

I'm no attorney or expert here, but do recall there can exist a constitutional crisis in many instances. This is where the Supreme Court would likely play a role. These scenarios were constant cable news fodder around the Clinton impeachment.


----------



## guyfromboston (Jan 26, 2005)

That would be quite a pickle. On the other hand, it would easily be solved in the 2008 election when Democrats would lose massively. They're not going to impeach Bush, for the same reason the GOP should not have impeached Clinton. You will notice, for example, how happy GOP operatives are that Senator Feingold was stupid enough to suggest a censure of the President. We're at war people - you don't impeach the President during a war, unless he's selling secrets to the enemy. What are the Dems going to reveal, that Bush went TOO FAR in protecting the American people? WOW! That will really make him unpopular.



> quote:_Originally posted by I_Should_Be_Working_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by guyfromboston_
> We're at war people - you don't impeach the President during a war, unless he's selling secrets to the enemy. What are the Dems going to reveal, that Bush went TOO FAR in protecting the American people? WOW! That will really make him unpopular.


Setting aside the issue of whether or not you impeach a President during a war, Bush is doing a fine job of making himself unpopular all on his own.


----------



## guyfromboston (Jan 26, 2005)

True, but hardly relevant to the point I was making.


> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by guyfromboston_
> 
> That would be quite a pickle. On the other hand, it would easily be solved in the 2008 election when Democrats would lose massively. They're not going to impeach Bush, for the same reason the GOP should not have impeached Clinton. You will notice, for example, how happy GOP operatives are that Senator Feingold was stupid enough to suggest a censure of the President. We're at war people - you don't impeach the President during a war, unless he's selling secrets to the enemy. What are the Dems going to reveal, that Bush went TOO FAR in protecting the American people? WOW! That will really make him unpopular.


You're really from Boston? Are you sure?


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Here, some fodder for the debate _(my notes in italics)_:

_Presidential succession as a cohesive whole derives from Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the 25th Amendment thereto, and current statute, to wit: 3 USC 19. To answer a theory/question posed above, 3 USC 19 is quite specific: (1) If, by reason of death, resignation, *removal from office*, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President ..._

The original Constitution provides that if neither the President nor Vice President can serve, the Congress shall provide law stating who is next in line. Currently that law exists as 3 USC 19, a section of the U.S. Code. This law was established as part of the Presidential Succession Act of 1947. There, the following line of succession is provided:

* Speaker of the House of Representatives
* President Pro Tempore of the Senate
* Secretary of State
* Secretary of the Treasury
* Secretary of Defense
* Attorney General
* Secretary of the Interior
* Secretary of Agriculture
* Secretary of Commerce
* Secretary of Labor
* Secretary of Health and Human Services
* Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
* Secretary of Transportation
* Secretary of Energy
* Secretary of Education
* Secretary of Veterans Affairs
* Secretary of Homeland Security (not yet set by law)

The only exception to the line provided in the law states that to ascend to the Presidency, the next person in line must be constitutionally eligible. Any person holding an office in the line of succession who, for example, is not a naturally-born citizen cannot become President. In this case, that person would be skipped and the next eligible person in the line would become President.

*https://www.CustomShirt1.com

Kabbaz-Kelly & Sons Fine Custom Clothiers
* Bespoke Shirts & Furnishings * Zimmerli Swiss Underwear **
* Alex Begg Cashmere * Pantherella Socks **​


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

That law must have really rotted President Truman's socks, knowing that Speaker Martin would be next in line until January, 1949. A good incentive to continue breathing!


----------



## daltx (Jan 19, 2006)

gmac,

I was not trying to suggest that your anti Dick Cheney remarks were Anti-American, I was referencing remarks that you made earlier, it may have even been in a different thread. If you made no such remarks, I apologize. I was merely wondering how grayishues came to the conclusion that I was attacking the country of Canada, any more than you were attacking America (in fact maybe neither of us was attacking the other's country). 

As for your statement, "Dick Cheney is one of the foulest liars to ever hold office in your country and he has the blood of thousands on his hands. May he rot in hell," I can only hope that you were using hyperbole here. I do not feel that those are the words of a reasonable man

On a side note, I have not been to Minneapolis but from what I have heard, your assessment is right on. I have spent time in BC and have really enjoyed it there.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by guyfromboston_
> 
> True, but hardly relevant to the point I was making.
> 
> ...


Actually it is relevant. (1) Just because we're at war doesn't make the President immune from questions about his behavior--trying to deflect criticism of the President by saying that we all need to rally 'round the flag just won't wash and (2) it is entirely possible that the American people think that Bush has gone too far in protecting the American people. His popularity is a direct reflection of the war in Iraq, which, if I recall correctly is being fought to protect the American people from mushroom clouds or the expansion of the caliphate or some other damn thing that will be thought up any minute now.


----------



## guyfromboston (Jan 26, 2005)

It is irrelevant to my point. Bush has done much (or rather, failed to do much) that has made him unpopular. Where liberals go wrong is they believe that the American people dissaprove of his job performance for the same reason that liberal elites dissaprove of his job performance - namely, that he lied to get us into the war, etc. Simply not the case. The American people are upset right now because they think we are going to lose the war. Bush has not done enough to convince them otherwise (though I have noticed he has started to campaign again). If they believe we are winning, they will support the war and the President. Democrats will never win on the platform they've developed, which basically says that the US should go back to September 10th modes of assessing risks.



> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## guyfromboston (Jan 26, 2005)

No, I'm not from Boston. Lived there for a long time though (and was living there when I joined Ask Andy). It's good to be a conservative in a sea of knee-jerk liberal clowns. Makes the arguments stronger.



> quote:_Originally posted by hopkins_student_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by msh14_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 The US House Clerk records aren't a source? The man was asking for sources, not citations. Do you realise the difference?


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> 
> It is laid out in the constitution, and therefore constitutional.


Well, capital punishment is also mentioned in the constitution but that didn't stop the Supreme Court from declaring it unconstitutional. We have a Humpty Dumpty Supreme Court: The Constitution means whatever they say it means.

I'm also amused by the assertion that the NYT is a well-respected, balanced news outlet. Yeah, and CBS, too.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

AlanC,

If you're talking about _*Furman*_ that decision was not that the DP was unconsitutional. The Court found specific state statutes unconstitutional.

They also made it clear that the states could rewrite their death penalty statutes to correct the issues found in *Furman*, which they did.

The clear difference with regards to the succession is that it is clearly spelled out. Someone might go to court on precise procedural issues, but not regarding who is to assume the offices. On the other hand, the administration of the death penalty is left open to some interpretation.

All just my humble opinion, however.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


GMAC - Your post looks like a transcription from moveon.org.

There is no Constitutional right to have an abortion paid for by the federal government. However the pregnancy, adoption is always an option. If one believes that abortion is murder, then one can't condone the funding.

The ERA vote was to deny an extension of the ratification process. The fem-libs had adequate time to get it ratified. They were upset that they failed to get enough state legislatures to approve it. Their only hope was to get several states to re-vote, and they had consistently failed at this.

Head Start and the Department of Education were colossal failures of the "Great Society" of the 1960's. Both should have been out of business long before Dick Cheney voted against them.

I was born and raised in Kentucky. Many Kentuckians believe that there should be fewer limits on gun ownership. Where are you going with this?

The ban on so-called armor piercing bullets would have banned almost all standard rifle hunting bullets. There was never any evidence of that type of ammunition (sold exclusively to the military) was ever used in a crime. The term "cop-killer" bullets was bandied about by the left with no knowledge of how rifle or handgun bullets worked.

There was never a "plastic gun" which could elude airport security screening. No gun wich fired any existing pistol ammunition could be undetected by technology of the time.

The seven day waiting period was another attempt to establish a non-existant link between purchasing handguns and crime. No credible study has ever produced a link. The only hearing testimony was anecdotal.

There is ample evidence that the clean air and water legislation had provisions in them which would have put legitimate companies out of business, because the cost of complying with the law would have bankrupted companies which were in compliance with the laws at the time the original acts were passed.

Where are you going with your last three points? There were/are many senators and representatives who are conservative in their voting and political philosophy. You act as if "C" is a scarlet letter. Try to be a little more original in your opposition.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------

