New York Times columnist who doesn't know how our government works wants George W. Bush to resign now so Obama can take over.
Problem: if GWB resigned right now, Dick Cheney would become President. And even if Cheney resigned--well, have a gander:
Notice please that the President-elect is nowhere in this list.
Now, Nancy Pelosi could name Obama as her VP and once everyone was sworn in, resign, leaving Obama as President until his inauguration in January. She could not, as the columnist suggests, "defer" to the President-elect; she would either have to accept the office or let Robert "Sheets" Byrd have it. The law and the Constitution are very clear on this point; you don't get to say, "Well, I don't feel that I'm worthy, so why don't you put in this other fella?" If Pelosi and Byrd tried to "defer", Condi Rice would then become our first black and female President in one fell swoop.
(I'm not sure what happens to Nancy Pelosi's status as Speaker of the House if she becomes President.)
And it's all entirely academic, anyway, because George W. Bush doesn't have to resign just because some liberal dyke can't stand to wait eight more weeks. Learn patience, you asstards; you only have to wait until freaking January. If you can't stand the wait, go freeze your sorry ass in a glacier or something.
We conservatives will have to wait until January of 2013 and you don't hear us whining.
* * *
Here is some actual cogent thought on what Democrats think of the secret ballot. They love it when it's about deciding whether or not to give Joe Lieberman the hidey-ho; and in 2001 they urged the Mexican government to make unionizing votes a secret ballot process.
Now, however, for us, the Democrats want to go to the "card check" system, where if enough employees of a particular "shop" sign a card saying they want union representation, the shop has to unionize. This would replace the secret ballot system that is currently emplaced, and which many Democrats thought was perfect for Mexico.
You see, here's how it works. Let's say that a union wanted to come into my workplace, the Target store in Orland Park. What they'd do is talk to us employees and say, "Here, sign this to show that you're interested in unionizing your workplace." But if you sign that card, you're giving away your rights and a chunk of your paycheck (for union dues, of course!).
Now, let's say the union failed to get enough people to sign these cards. Then they switch modes: they picket, they protest, they boycott. And they intimidate--they talk to the people who signed the cards and say, "So-and-so didn't sign a card! He doesn't want your pay to go up and your benefits to get better!" They foster resentment among the pro-union employees for the anti-union employees, they make phone calls, they do whatever they can to make you miserable until you sign that card.
And once the union is in place, the store can no longer hire seasonal employees to help get the work done at Christmastime, so your workload goes up. You have to work harder for less money because the union is taking some of your paycheck. People get promoted based on how long they've worked there, not whether or not they're qualified for the promotions. Any time there is a problem you have to go to the union first and then talk to your boss second.
If you need help with something in your area and no one from your area is around, you're screwed, because people working in other areas will end up with grievances filed against them for violating union rules. "Sorry, but I can't help you restack that pallet in Receiving--I'm on the floor tonight."
I think the ultimate example of the costs of unionization can be found in Detroit. Guys paid to sit in a room and do nothing--and they make 85% of their regular pay--because of union rules.
And we wonder why our automakers are on the skids?
...so the Democrats are hypocrites. As usual.