Downsize DC Impeachment Links

If a President commits murder and he isn't impeached, then for what CAN he be impeached? DownsizeDC.org is calling for impeachment of Barack Obama, explained in these posts:

NEW HERESY: Should Congress Impeach the President?

Press Release: Impeach the President

Is it Partisan to Call for Impeachment?

Max Schmeling, James Harrison, and Me

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

[I was reminded] of a dream a friend told me about years ago, when George W. Bush was still President.

In the dream, Bush would keep showing up in various places and would try to be polite and friendly. But, my friend just wanted to avoid him.

I certainly feel that way with just about any past President, as well as the current one.

I don't want to be photographed with war criminals.

44

What are we to call the new President?

Frankly, I love it that his name is Barack Hussein Obama. How could you top that? Yassir bin Shamir? Ehud Saddam Khadafi?

It's unfortunate that some on the Paranoid Right evoke the name to suggest something sinister. Frankly, it works because it's ironic.

But what's his nickname? What should we call him, like we called previous Presidents Ike or Ronnie or Bubba or Dubya?

I don't surf as much as I used to, so I don't know if something's already caught on. It depends on his actions in the early days. Closing down Guantanamo is a good start.

But if his Presidency really starts to stink, we have the perfect nickname: B.O.

If he does next to nothing but still makes soccer moms feel good about themselves and America, there's one I've seen from the Right: Oprahma

And then there's Barry. "Barry" sounds like a kind, decent, honorable fellow. In many ways, Obama comports himself like a Barry. On the other hand, relatively few "alpha male" types are called Barry, and people know this, deep down. Thus, to call him Barry will be to suggest that he's not up to the job. The last Barry who ran for President didn't do too well.

(By the way: no President has been a Robert/Bob, Dave/David, Edward/Ed, or Frederick/Fred. But we have had a Rutherford, a Chester, a Grover, a Woodrow, and a Warren. Not to mention a Harry and a Gerry, so a Barry just follows in their footsteps.)

"BHO" doesn't have much of a ring to it like JFK or FDR, at least not yet. To me, it sounds stupid and awkward.

The Big O would have been perfect, but it has been taken by basketball great Oscar Robertson.

I'm tempted just to call him "H," following the footsteps of W.

Or perhaps "44." It will just put Obama as just another in a line of people who, even when "effective" did more harm than good.

To call him "44" would be to suggest that he's just another President we have to endure. It will be up to him to prove to us he's better than that.

Thoughts on the Inauguration

Actually, I don't have any. I was working and didn't think about the change until later in the day while running errands. "Oh yeah, we have a new President. Apparently he hasn't screwed anything up yet."

This is more or less the way I want it to stay. I want Obama out of my life as much as possible. Not because he's Obama, but because he's the President. Lew Rockwell spoke eloquently of the Presidency back in 1996:

The modern institution of the presidency is the primary political evil Americans face, and the cause of nearly all our woes. It squanders the national wealth and starts unjust wars against foreign peoples that have never done us any harm. It wrecks our families, tramples on our rights, invades our communities, and spies on our bank accounts. It skews the culture toward decadence and trash. It tells lie after lie. Teachers used to tell school kids that anyone can be president. This is like saying anyone can go to Hell. It’s not an inspiration; it’s a threat.

The presidency – by which I mean the executive State – is the sum total of American tyranny. The other branches of government, including the presidentially appointed Supreme Court, are mere adjuncts. The presidency insists on complete devotion and humble submission to its dictates, even while it steals the products of our labor and drives us into economic ruin. It centralizes all power unto itself, and crowds out all competing centers of power in society, including the church, the family, business, charity, and the community. I’ll go further. The US presidency is the world’s leading evil. It is the chief mischief-maker in every part of the globe, the leading wrecker of nations, the usurer behind Third-World debt, the bailer-out of corrupt governments, the hand in many dictatorial gloves, the sponsor and sustainer of the New World Order, of wars, interstate and civil, of famine and disease. To see the evils caused by the presidency, look no further than Iraq or Serbia, where the lives of innocents were snuffed out in pointless wars, where bombing was designed to destroy civilian infrastructure and cause disease, and where women, children, and the aged have been denied essential food and medicine because of a cruel embargo. Look at the human toll taken by the presidency, from Dresden and Hiroshima to Waco and Ruby Ridge, and you see a prime practitioner of murder by government.

There Ain't No Place Like Nebraska (Well, except Maine)

John McCain won the overall popular vote for President in Nebraska, and also won it in two of the three Congressional Districts. He is therefore going to get 4 out of 5 of the state's Electoral College - two for winning statewide vote, and two for each Congressional District he won, with Barack Obama taking one.

This makes more sense than the "winner take all" system in 48 states. After all, when a bill is passed in Congress, the people have been represented both individually and collectively:

• Each individual is represented by one House Representative
• Each state is represented by two Senators.

Let's say every state has the Nebraska/Maine system of electing Presidents. When the President signs a law, he does so with the consent of the people who put him in office both individually and collectively as states:

• Each individual is represented by one Electoral vote
• Each state is represented by two Electoral votes

Actually, I'd take it one step further, and have members of the Electoral College run as individuals. On the ballot, voters will see a list of candidates for the Electoral College representing the Congressional District, and will be instructed to vote for only one. Then they will see a list of candidates running for the Electoral College statewide, and will be asked to vote for two (although they can just vote for one if they desire). The two top vote-getters in the statewide Electoral College election will become Electors, as will the top vote-getter in the District elections. Those who are on the ballot for Elector could be identified by party, but wouldn't be legally-bound as Electors to support their party's candidate - especially if a scandal erupts before the general election and the Electoral College vote for President.

The Electoral College would therefore be elected just like Congress is elected, and would have an independent authority of its own. What if one party's Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees die after the general election? Members of the Electoral College will have the authority to select replacements to vote for, and have the consent of the people to do so.

It's just another way to improve the republican form of government without making having to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

A Young Cindy McCain, aka Lynn Anderson (?)

Cindy now:






Cindy (?) then (?):

The Ron Paul Presidency

The end of Ron Paul's bid for the Presidency raises the question:

Would he have made a great President?

I don't think so - and this is no reflection on Paul, his ideas, or his abilities.

For Paul to have a successful Presidency in this day and age, he would need at a minimum:

• 60% support in a general election
• filibuster-proof majorities in Congress
  

In other words, something we've rarely seen in modern politics, and even then only under Democratic control. But considering how different Paul's goals are from that of the neo-con and progressive wings of the Establishment, a "successful" Presidency would likely be impossible.

To make the point simple, think of this: If you believe federal employees always follow the President's orders instead of their own ideologies, interests, and agenda -- for instance, if you believe it is impossible for any CIA agent to have played any role in the JFK assassination, I respect your views. I have no quarrel with you. It is also pointless for you to read on.

On the other hand, if you are open to the idea that the CIA may have been involved in the JFK assassination, or that federal employees may follow their own agenda instead of their President, you may understand why a Paul Presidency could have been doomed.

If, once inaugurated, Paul by snapping his fingers could turn every federal employee into a Constitutionalist, he would have made a fantastic President. But it is far more likely that, in the period between Election Day and Inauguration, forces would be at work to undermine the Paul Administration. Two obvious scenarios come to mind:

• False-flag attacks blamed on Iran or other terrorists, "proving" that Paul is "soft" on the terrorists.
  
• Using their warrantless wiretapping powers, federal agents could frame senior Paul aides of illegal or embarrassing conduct.
  

But it could be other issues:

• A scare introduced into the food supply that undermines Paul's opposition to, for instance, the National Animal Identification System and other command-and-control programs.
  
• Manufacturing another corporate fraud scandal, emboldening calls in Congress for imposing yet more regulations while making Paul appear to be a free-market "extremist."
• Manufacturing a statistical upsurge in drug use and drug-related crime, while feeding the mainstream media anecdote after tragic anecdote of crime, neglect, and negligence due to drug addiction, making Paul appear soft on crime and weak on morality.
  

By sabotaging Paul's program, an environment could be created in which Paul's vetoes are always overridden, where his own legislative proposals never get out of committee, perhaps even where Congress declares a war he believes is wrong, thereby forcing him to resign.

It makes one wonder why anyone would want to be President, especially anyone who suspects there could be rogue elements within the Executive Branch and powerful people outside it who could manipulate Congress and the media. Push too many buttons, and one could face scandal after scandal, setback after setback. Or suffer the same fate as JFK.

Two Things I Like About the Bush Presidency

The two things I like about the Bush Presidency:

1. The First Lady has pretty much stayed out of the way. I suppose if you're interested in her, you could find out what she's doing. But after Hillary Clinton, Barbara Bush, and Nancy Reagan, Laura Bush if the finest First Lady in my memory.

2. The daughters also stayed out of the way. Making Jenna's wedding a private affair in the middle of nowhere is most appropriate. And I don't even remember the name of the other daughter.

Bush I's Finest Moment

I saw a portion of The American Experience about George Herbert Walker Bush last night.

In Bush's first year as President, Poland held free elections for the first time, and Hungary opened its borders with Austria, triggering upheaval in the Eastern Bloc that led to the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

As this happened, Bush remained, as Dana Carvey would often mock on Saturday Night Live, "prudent." He sent a message to Gorbachev that he wouldn't be dancing on the Berlin Wall. He framed the issue as something wonderful for the German people, not the sign of "victory" in the Col War. As commentators on the program noted, Bush didn't want Hungary, 1956 all over again, when the CIA persuaded the people that America would back their revolution, only find themselves crushed by Soviet troops. So if the Soviets ordered a crackdown, America was not going to intervene.

While Sen. George Mitchell and Rep. Dick Gephardt publicly criticized Bush for not being exultant, Bush quietly earned the trust and goodwill of Gorbachev. With a vote on German unification coming, the question was with whom Germany should be aligned. Bush wanted it to be part of NATO, and Gorbachev wanted it to be neutral. But the 1975 Helsinki Accords affirmed that each European country had the right to decide to choose for itself. Bush pointed this out to Gorbachev, who was forced to agree. So they held a press conference saying that the issue wasn't up to them, it was up to the German people. (Who, in the end, did join NATO)

Bush did some pretty bad things, such as giving the green light for Saddam to invade Kuwait, then make war on Kuwait, then misleadingly encouraged the Iraqi people to revolt against Saddam (though at least Bush I wasn't dumb enough to actually invade Iraq). Bush also deposed Noriega from Panama, and established the "Drug Czar."

But his refusal to grandstand on the Berlin Wall, when just about any other President or would-be President would have done so, was one of the best diplomatic maneuvers I've seen. He would have done better had he, and subsequent Presidents, acted like that more often.

For a Three-Party System

America needs a third major political party. Not a stronger "protest" party, but one equally as popular and powerful as the two we have. Not because the Democratic and Republican Parties have failed - although they certainly have. Not to supplant one of those parties, although both of them deserve to die. Not because we need new and better ideas than what the Two Parties have allowed, although we do.

Four parties would be even better, five even, but we have to start somewhere.

The reason for a third major party begins with the Electoral College. Imagine three major-party nominees for President, none getting 40% of the vote. None getting a majority in the Electoral College. Elections thrown to the House of Representatives. Maybe the first-place guy in popular votes is second in Electoral votes. Maybe the #1 in both popular and Electoral votes is absolutely hated by 60% of the American people and 75% of Congress. Maybe the third-place guy throws his support to the second-place guy in exchange for getting appointed Secretary of State. (It's happened before...)

The result? The President, not being popularly elected, gets no "mandate" to get his legislative agenda implemented. He must govern along with the leaders of at least two of the three parties in Congress, or he'll lose one of them and see most of Congress against him. The age of the Imperial Presidency would draw to a close. Facing one hostile party, and one party that could turn hostile, Presidents would be at greater risk of impeachment than today, because impeachment wouldn't be seen as "overturning an election." After two or three Presidencies like this, the people may come to view the President as a manager, a ho-hum position lacking the power and prestige it holds today.

If congress was similarly divided - say, no party with fewer than 20% of the seats or more than 40% - then caucuses would become far more interesting. For a coalition of parties to become a majority, key committee posts would have to be given to the smaller party in the coalition. A third party would be a "check and balance" on the other two. A bill with "bi-partisan" support might still be blocked by the third. It is more likely that laws with expiration dates would not be renewed, and instead of agreeing to a new budget, Congress could only pass "continuing resolutions" at previous budget levels. Government would not grow.

Moreover, many members of Congress would themselves have normally gotten elected with a plurality, not a majority - or, perhaps, a run-off vote. They couldn't retain their seats by exploiting a couple of emotional issues and demonizing his opponent, because he would have to contend with two opponents - one of whom may agree with him on those issues but present himself as better on other issues. There wouldn't be as many "safe seats" and free rides in Congress.

Of course, I have my preferences of what the agenda of this third party would be. But that matters little, because as it gathers more prominence ideology would take a backseat to winning elections. And it's also true that a Reichstag Fire event, like 9-11, could frighten the people and all parties into "supporting the Commander-in-Chief," but his window of goodwill would close more quickly in a three-party system than it has with George W. Bush.

The more un-democratic the government is, the less likely the people are to support or trust it, which means it is less likely to try to do too much. Passing a constitutional amendment to disenfranchise the people is an absurd idea. By turning majorities into pluralities and coalitions, the very presence of a third-party would make the federal government less effective, which would be good for liberty.