A bit of interesting repartee between the VP candidates on the subject of gay marriage, civil unions, etc.  More after the fold.

It's interesting that House voted on the bailout bill, which failed by about 10 votes.  That the Senate will pass it is not in doubt, but the house is the hard part.

I kinda think this is up.

1. House votes, it goes down.  As does the stock market.

2. Senate votes yea.  

3. Arms are twisted.  John McCain "rides to the rescue"

4. House eventually approves.  Bill passes.  Wall Street is happy for now.

....should it come up.

Probably it won't, and I hope that it doesn't need to.

But I've been beating the "Impeach!" drum all week, as a fallback in case Bush is too obstinate about a real bailout, and insists on a Wall Street giveaway.  He's already threatened a veto at least once.  Playing chicken with the economy isn't nice.

Thus, in the spirit of Letterman, 10 reasons that Senate Republicans, of whom 17 would be needed, should consider voting "yea" if articles of impeachment ever come to the floor.  (And ten reasons why they probably won't).

In a prior diary, I broached the subject of impeachment of Bush/Cheney now, rather than letting them run out their term.  The general response was "ain't gonna happen"; even though we all probably would love to see these bums turned out of office.

But now, it appears that the Bush administration is engaged in a high-stakes game of pokerchicken with Congress on the economy.  Many suggest that this is a ruse; to force Democrats to pass an obviously-unpopular bailout bill, and take the blame for what happens.  Bush has reportedly threatened to veto any bill that wasn't "clean"--i.e. that contained too much regulatory oversight, or was too punitive to Wall Street and the folks that run it.

So perhaps it's time to turn up the pressure, and put the subject of impeachment on the table and on people's minds.  This is a high-stakes game, and the Democrats need to quit folding every time the bet is raised.  

The notion of impeaching President Bush, and VP Cheney, for their various high crimes and misdemeanors, has been occasionally discussed.  Dennis Kucinich has proposed articles of impeachment, but they have not been acted on by the House Democrats.  Under ordinary circumstances, letting the lame duck slink out of office is a wiser course of action.

However, the administration's reaction to the financial crisis (of largely their making) is unacceptable--it seems they intend to use a dire situation and hold the financial markets hostage in order to get an unacceptable "blank check".  I would be nervous about the bailout plan as construed with an administration I trust in office.  With this administration--which has proven itself wholly untrustworthy, lying on numerous occasions to win support for radical policy initiatives (and a frigging war)--the proposal is offensive.

Given that--if a reasonable proposal with legit checks and balances does not come forth; rapid impeachment and removal of Bush/Cheney may be necessary to deal with the crisis.  This, of course, depends on finding 17 Republican senators to vote on such a proposal, and has a lot of consequences good and bad.  More after the jump.

There is a fundamental problem with the whole "let Wall Street fail" meme.  Here's why a bailout of some sort is unfortunately necessary--the fundamental issue is that it isn't Wall Street's money that's at risk; it's yours--and what should be done in the future.