Blair 'to hand over power in May'

BBC ^ | 7 September 2006

[wagglebee]

I hope he makes it that long, but the way things seem to be going over there, he may not last.

[NRA2BFree]

This is a huge mistake. Blair has been a good friend to the US. It bad for the Brits and the US. It will only encourage the RATS to impeach President Bush, IF they take the House and Senate.

[snugs]

I agree with every word you say

[snugs]

Agreed

[snugs]

Here here agreed on all points

[snugs]

:o)

[snugs]

Agreed Bush has it Blair not

[NewLand]

Labour's replacement for Blair...

Who we need in UK is someone like this...

[Sam Cree]

Well, I will defer to your judgment of Mr. Blair.

[dubie]

[fieldmarshaldj]

Unfortunately, what I've seen of the Tories lately is quite disappointing (is there such a thing as "TINOs" ?). I can't say they look much better than Labour, let alone the LibDems. Too bad they've forgotten the Thatcher mantra.

[ToryHeartland]

Unfortunately, what I've seen of the Tories lately is quite disappointing (is there such a thing as "TINOs" ?). I can't say they look much better than Labour, let alone the LibDems. Too bad they've forgotten the Thatcher mantra.

I see your point and don't fundamentally disagree. The Tory Party really lost the plot toward the end of the Thatcher regime; too many self-serving MP's had crept in, more interested in looking after themselves than in what the country needed. Most of our party's wounds were self-inflicted.

But Labour in power have gotten away with murder. Levels of National Insurance taxation are crippling, educational system has been FUBAR'ed by the Left politicos, immigration run amok, and street crime is Labour's biggest 'growth industry.'

But a lot of Americans seem unaware of Blair's domestic policy, and/or give him a pass because he has been a reasonably solid ally of the USA.

[fieldmarshaldj]

No, I'd say the only thing I'd agree with Blair on was WoT, I have been hearing horror stories about the domestic side of things on his watch. I was never a fan of Blair until after 9/11/2001. As I said, it's just unfortunate that the Tories couldn't provide enough leadership on the issue of foreign policy, and seemed to just take the opposite (and wrong-headed) stance to Blair.

Too much of it smacks of the problem the U.S. Republican Party had leading up to WW2, taking an isolationist position (some of which was a genuine stance, some of it simply because it was opposite to what Franklin Roosevelt publicly stood for). If the GOP had managed to elect a President in 1940 and sweep in like-minded majorities, it could've had horrific consequences. Fortunately, more realistic GOP politicians like Sen. Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan dropped the isolationist stance when he saw the writing on the wall, and the bulk of the party followed suit.

Ironically, it is the party of FDR today that has taken the paleo-Republican position on engagement, a terrifying prospect were they ever to regain power.

[GreenLanternCorps]

Actually, if Wendell Wilkie had won in 1940 he would have approched the war like FDR did. Wilkie was not IIRC an isolationist at all.

[fieldmarshaldj]

From what I understood of Willkie, he was initially thought of as an isolationist, and later claimed to be a non-interventionist. Prior to the '40 election, he charged FDR with being a "warmonger." Eventually, he came around to embrace most of FDR's positions (before he died, he left the Republican Party to found the NY Liberal Party, which was created to supplant the Communist-infested NY American Labor Party). Interesting that despite his relatively youthful age when he ran (48), he would not have lived to see the end of the Presidential term, and his running mate, Sen. Charles McNary, both died in 1944 (McNary in February, Willkie, just 3 weeks before the November elections). It surely would've been a politically tumultous year, as Speaker Sam Rayburn would've become President with a vacancy in both offices (and I have no idea whom the Democrats would've put up in '44, as FDR probably would not have been physically up to mounting a rematch campaign).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendell_Willkie

[Torie]

I am continually amazed by your knowledge of political trivia, even trivia that goes back a long way. You are the best on the net at that, bar none, and I get around. Kudos. Few may appreciate what you do in that regard, as to your contribution, but I do, FWIW.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Thank you. I like to think of myself as a Michael Barone disciple. Though I'm sure he could probably hand me my butt on this subject.

[Toby06]

Gonna miss you, Tony.

[Clintonfatigued]

"Few may appreciate what you do in that regard, as to your contribution, but I do, FWIW."

I do to, but DJ already knows that. And I'm also pretty good with electoral history, if I may say so myself.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"It surely would've been a politically tumultous year, as Speaker Sam Rayburn would've become President with a vacancy in both offices"

---

Between 1886 and 1947, the Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore of the Senate were not included in the line of succession, and next in line after the VP was the Secretary of State, folloed by the Secretary of the Treasury and (if I'm not mistaken) the Secretary of War and Attorney General. So had a President Wilkie died in 1944 he would have been succeeded by his Secretary of State, who would have likely been an heir apparent (maybe Robert Taft?) given the fact that the VP had died in February and Willkie's health was failing. I assume that Willkie would have dropped out of the presidential race in 1944 given his ill health, but then again FDR didn't.

When President Truman signed the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, it inserted the Speaker and the President Pro Tem in line following after the VP (prior to 1886, the President Pro Tem came first, followed by the Speaker). It is of doubtful constitutionality for Congress to insert legislative officers into the line of succession, since the word "officer" as used in Article II almost certainly refers to an officer of the Executive Branch (or perhaps to the broader Officer of the United States, which includes federal executive officers and judges but excludes legislators, which is why an impeached and removed judge such as Alcee Hastings may serve in Congress), and since having a legislative officer become President would create a potential conflict of interest and would force a Speaker to resign from the House to become Acting President for a 24-hour period in which the President (if he didn't have a VP) would be under anesthesia due to an operation. I think we should listen to James Madison (who wrote the freaking Constitution) and get legislative officers out of the line of succession before there is a succession crisis (with both the Speaker and Secretary of State claiming the presidency).