It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What if the Republicans retain the senate and lose the whitehouse?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   
An idea hit me a while ago. I'm sure it's no secret that US politics have hit a new low. The parties will stop at nothing to out muscle one another and gain power.
So what would happen if at this low ebb in political ethics, both houses of congress were controlled by one party, while the white house was in the hands of another?
In the back of my mind, I wonder if the party controlling congress would drum up a reason, real or otherwise, to impeach both the President and Vice President together, thus installing the Speaker of the House (from the party that lost the election) as president?

Does this danger seem remotely real to anyone, or am I overestimating the lengths to which the partisans will go?




posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 08:34 PM
link   
I hope this is sarcasm...

It happened already. Look at Clinton...circa 98-99.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Yes it did, but at that time five Republicans defected, ensuring that not even a majority of the senate found him guilty (which would have been more stigmatizing to Clinton's image, even though a 2/3 majority was required for conviction).
What I'm worried about is the possibilty of a straight party line vote yielding a majority of guilty votes, which would seriously stigmatize a president- and this time we aren't talking about a lame duck, but a first term president perhaps.

I suppose I would be a little surprised if an impeachment actually succeeded (I can't imagine the party which is denied the whitehouse controlling 2/3 of the senate really) but I've learned over time not to underestimate the dirty tricks and backroom deals that can take place.

Edit to add: If there was to be a successful "congressional coup" so to speak though, I could see it happening by way of some sort of set-up or sting whereby a president and VP were caught red handed in something that they very obviously were guilty of, thus making them indefensible to their fellow party members in the senate.

Suppose for example that there was complicity in an intelligence or armed service, and that the assassination of a rival senator was pinned very convincingly on the administration.

I know this is far left field stuff, but I am more than a little concerned about the way the gloves have been coming off more and more since "zippergate".

[edit on 28-8-2005 by The Vagabond]



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 06:16 AM
link   
IMH what the Vagabond outlined in his/her first post appears to be a flaw in the American political system but hay why fix something that isnt broken with the exoection of 2000 the American political system has served its purpose without any major hiccups.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
An idea hit me a while ago. I'm sure it's no secret that US politics have hit a new low. The parties will stop at nothing to out muscle one another and gain power.


THe Republican party is clearly fascist and has been the party that has perpatrated dispicable acts on the American people for power centralization. Intent is measured by success - if the Dems were anywhere as focused on an "Any means necessary" strategy, we'd have a cancelling out & even sized armies. We don't.

Here are the biggest traitors: Joe Liberman, Dick Gephart & John McCain. Liberman/Gephart because of their groveling capitulation in hope of future reward ( the presidency), the "opposition" was lead by milquetoast Vichy Frenchmen who appeared in more photo ops with Bush than with anyone else.
McCain was THE MAN to break the two party stranglehold. 2000 would have been great, but it's allowable to say that a full steam campaign would have been outgunned by the other two. Their was no excuse in 2004, a stellar opportunity where true Conservatives had long regretted 2000, moderates were fence straddling and entrepaneurs would have bought the ticket. Instead, amazingly & contrary to the viciousness of the attacks he endured, he not only supported Bush, but damn near crawled inside him.
The possibility of a GOP Congress scuttling a non-GOP president? If a Democrat, yes. If a 3rd party, not likely.
3rd party is going to be more likely than anyone thinks in 2008; we will see a ferocious move by GOPers to distance themselves from the Bush taint - either by choice as a strategy, or by necessity via discovery/disclosure/smart attack campaigning. That necessary amount of distance can cross the street to being a 3rd party candidate....Ron Paul is younger than McCain and at this point, better credentialed. Jim Jeffers is a name people can identify with and was "in the GOP Loop" enough to be one of that unholy barbershop quartet!!!



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time

THe Republican party is clearly fascist and has been the party that has perpatrated dispicable acts on the American people for power centralization.


If you are really concerned about power centralization, then you should be on my side rather than where you are now. Centralized government is indicative of the left over the past 40-50 years or so, but I'll agree that the Republicans have done little to twart our move to socialism.


Intent is measured by success - if the Dems were anywhere as focused on an "Any means necessary" strategy, we'd have a cancelling out & even sized armies. We don't.


Actually, I think they are focused on "Any means necessary". If not, then why try to model yourself after the current Republicans? I think it should be clear that the Republicans are in power for a few simple reasons.

1) The solid face (which tends to drive me nuts), using the same talking points from president to State Reps and has now trickled into conservative debate (which is sickening really).

2) Proper marketing. As the Republican party moves left domestically, the Democrats have officially switched from liberals to progressives, which should concern you all.

3) Keeping the crap out of the official stream. While the Republcans seem to rely on having the external pundits do their posturing for them and either ignoring or marginalizing any of that internally, the Democrats have grasped onto the more marginal ideas and made vitriol a Party line. Dean was a bad idea. Pelosi speaking is a bad idea. To name a few.


Ron Paul is younger than McCain and at this point, better credentialed.


Boy, I agree with you there. Don't get me wrong, I can't stand the GOP probably about as much as you.

Let's be honest though. The US Federal Government is getting bigger and spending more. It should be obvious to all that Bush and Co. have mortgaged our country more than it already is, increased spending, and given us not much return for the money as of now.

He seems to be best Classified as a Wilsonian conservative Democrat rather than a Republican.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   
I think the real question is: Does it matter?

There's no real difference between the two "major" parties anymore. It's all window dressing.

Think pro-wrestling. It's all put-on.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
Think pro-wrestling. It's all put-on.


Dude. Now I'm going to have nightmares imagining Kerry and Bush fighting it out wearing loincloths and capes, and throwing chairs at each other.

The chairs I can handle...but the loincloths?! Oy!

Seriously though, I'm in agreement. The differences between the two parties of the moment just seems to be an awful lot of filler with very little substance.

I'm still curious as to whether they'll change the constitution in favour of Arnold...



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
I'm still curious as to whether they'll change the constitution in favour of Arnold...


That would require having a Constitutional Convention to change something like that.

First off, I say leave it alone.

Secondly, having a Con Con is a BAD idea. Because they won't want to change just that one little thing. They may decide to take out the Second Amendment, or make it so Bush is prez for life...you never want to give them an opportunity to screw it up!



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join