A fun discussion for the weekend even if it is unlikely. Promoted by Specter

(Originally posted, in slightly modified form, at DailyKos)

Bipartisan Impeachment?!

It sounds ludicrous, doesn’t it? But this crackpot idea is so crazy, it might just work.

THE IMPETUS

Bush threatens our republic’s existence. This isn’t alarmism—his continuation in office has consequences: a catastrophic war with Iran, a fiscal trainwreck, irreparable erosion of cherished liberties in the wake of another terrorist atrocity comparable to 9/11, or some combination, are possible; deepening entanglement in Iraq, mulish stagnation on national priorities, and chronic abuses of power are expected; needless Iraqi and American deaths are certain. Worse yet, our country will endure the pernicious ramifications of his reign for decades after he vacates the White House.

I could inveigh endlessly against the incompetence, deception, and lawlessness of BushCo’s tenure, but most people closely following these issues have already coalesced around the urgency of impeachment. Now, proponents need to convince others whose lives don’t orbit politics.

Greater media exposure (such as Bill Moyer's Impeachment Special ) will deepen support, but it must also be broadened; an overwhelming majority—the sort necessary for success—cannot be amassed if impeachment is perceived as a political weapon rather than the final tool of constitutional accountability. By impeaching and removing, we establish precedent, but only with solid popular undergirding will the beacon endure for our successors’ travails.

There is one way to do this: bring Republicans on board.

THE METHOD

“We don’t have the votes” is the favorite rejoinder of impeachment realists. Its popularity stems from veracity: both fourthbranch and chimpy need to go, but that means a Pelosi presidency. Republicans will never, EVER sign off on this.

I abhor their ends, but can’t blame them.

Bush’s removal would complete the GOP’s fall from power; by endorsing it they’d simultaneously legitimate our grievances and abdicate their last defensive line against a popular Democratic agenda, thereby cementing their irrelevancy.

Political suicide, in other words.

Facile analysis would seem to close the door definitively, then, but it overlooks a critical reality: Bush is a radioactive albatross that portends electoral massacre, and they know it. They need a way to jettison him, but retain power.

There is such a way.

The Constitution does not require that the Speaker of the House be third in line, rather, that's a provision of the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 . Congress could simply alter the process for instances when the vice-presidency is vacant, providing for election by both houses. After enactment of the law, Cheney would be removed, followed by Bush. A "caretaker president", publicly committed to not pardoning any BushCo officials, and having foresworn a 2008 campaign, would then be chosen.

Alternatively, the House could impeach both Cheney and Bush, elect the decider’s successor as temporary Speaker—there's no constitutional requirement that he even be a member of Congress—then, and only then, the Senate would convict.

The key similarity of each route is that it cuts Bush, who cannot be expected to facilitate his own removal, completely out of the loop.

As importantly, in both cases the “caretaker president” must be a moderate Republican—maybe an “elder statesman”—for two principal reasons: Democrats would be insulated from charges that impeachment was a naked power grab (or petty payback for Clinton), and Republicans would not lose the executive without an election. Though there’s no strict parliamentary analogue, this would be similar to a no-confidence vote, followed by formation of a national unity government.

THE PAYOFF

When I say bipartisan, I mean it; my proposal demands concessions from both parties, but benefits each.

The Republicans would get to shed their millstone, gaining a precious opportunity to show their constituencies that loyalty to the republic trumps loyalty to party and power, preserving some legacy other than enabling the worst president ever. Bush would, to a large extent, be neutralized as a 2008 election issue, rehabilitating the party (especially if the "caretaker" does a decent job).

Democrats, on the other hand, would dispel their image as practitioners of a particularly spineless political calculus, and fulfill the popular mandate of November 7th.

With a new administration not entrapped by increasingly desperate attempts to save face, we might begin to fashion an exit strategy for Iraq.

Having reasserted the principle of equality before the law, and punished the malfeasances of an utterly contemptible buffoon, the U.S.’s worldwide reputation would regain much luster. This is no small thing if we are genuinely interested in thwarting terrorism.

Moreover, Congress would have rediscovered its long dormant prerogatives, potentially reversing a dangerous accretion of executive power that spanned the 20th century; checks and balances would no longer be an empty slogan, and we’d all be better off for it.