To get this done, we need to get the House of Representatives to pass articles of impeachment. Impeachment has been initiated 62 times since 1789. Impeachment of officials in the executive branch can occur when they are suspected of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Surely betrayal of the oath of office constitutes treason, or at least a high crime.

The Presidential oath of office, as specified by the Constitution:

I do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The current President is not doing this. He is actively undermining the Constitution of the United States by appropriating to himself powers not allowed the President in the Constitution.

This certainly requires impeachment be initiated, if only to allow the American people to see where their representatives fall on this question, and to demonstrate the House’s awareness of the seriousness of the issue. If impeachment occurs, then we are freed from a criminal leading the land; if not, the elected representatives have spoken. Not to do this is negligence.

He argues that the President’s decision to do a thing makes the thing legal. This is clearly wrong. If the President decides to murder, then he is not doing a legal thing; if he decided to sell secrets to another country, then he is not doing a legal thing. The very ability to impeach a president implies the possibility that a president can do illegal things, including “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The wiretapping issue was resolved in the ’70s, when another president claimed that if the president chose to do a thing, that thing was legal. Congress said it was not. The fact that Bush is asking for these powers after a large public debate on the issue, decided by representatives of the people, shows his contempt for the oath he swore.

Note: if you saw this on my blog, forgive the repetition; I thought this was worth repeating in a place more people would hear it. If we all speak out, online and in person, we stand a better chance at effecting a sea change in the popular mindset.

Chris is confusing respect for the office with respect for the person holding it. The office of president is one that should be respected not only by U.S. citizens but by the person holding it. If the person holding that office does not respect it, and in fact betrays the oath he takes upon entering it, that person should lose the respect of the rest of the country. And that is exactly what has happened to George Bush.

What a completely self-involved, self-blind person! To use a situation he finds awkward (yet flattering) to attack his wife's sense of personal style (which tellingly doesn't complement his).

He's not a latent homosexual, he's a narcissist. Well, he might be a latent homosexual as well, but that's not the primary issue. He's looking for a reason to persuade his wife to be a better ornament at his side.

He's got more motivation for this behavior as a narcissist. From his perspective it's perfectly normal others find him attractive, of either sex; he may even be dressing in this manner to feel that crossing-all-boundaries level of appeal. But socially it's not generally acceptable, so he blames his wife for the same-sex issue (not bringing up that opposite-sex attraction could just as easily be argued, and just as wrongly).

Why, instead of talking about how his wife hasn't left behind her college style, is he not talking about how he's bought into a different sense of style? As if she's less evolved for being less reliant on makeup? Again, unable to see beyond his needs.

So, (a) his wife isn't looking good enough to match his appearance needs and (b) blaming his wife is a cover for bragging about his attractiveness. Sounds like overdetermined behavior stemming from his self-centeredness. Eventually this will become a problem, when his "me trumps thee" attitude crops up in a more serious area.

I'm one of the few non-Republicans in a military town in Central Texas, but I've been pleased to hear numerous Republicans complain about Bush. It seems to me that 66% is more optimistic than realistic (from the Bush administration's perspective, of course).

In English, the marriage aspect of Miss vs. Mrs only appeared in the 19th century. Prior to that, Mrs. implied a woman with some kind of power; a woman with land, or responsibilities apart from the merely sexual. An adult woman called Miss was probably a prostitute, or very poor and destitute. Any woman with a job other than prostitution or being a kept mistress (Miss is a shortening of mistress in this context) would have been Mrs./Mistress. In the Mrs context, mistress is the feminine equivalent of master. In the Miss context, mistress is a woman kept by a master.

In other words, rather than initially placing the value of Mrs in a woman's married state, the word showed a woman not necessarily dependent on others, particularly men, for her status. This changed meaning started in the Victorian age.

I don't know if the French have a similar history, but if so, the assumption of Madame and exclusion of Mademoiselle is perfectly appropriate and a good move. It removes any historical or curent evaluation of woman in regard to men, whether as a "kept woman" or through marriage, by choosing the stronger term. It also preserves acknowledgement of gender. As primates we aren't sexless, even if we should have equality of status and opportunity between the sexes.