Things are bad. The Washington Post spent yesterday’s op-ed space debating whether George W. Bush it the worst President ever, or only the fifth worst President ever. Wanker extraordinaraire Joe Klein admitted a timetable for Iraq might be the right idea, but said it was irresponsible to utter such a truth out loud. The New York Times reveals that Jose Padilla, an American citizen, has been so traumatized by the circumstances of his detention and the methods of his interrogation that he is not mentally competent to assist in his own defense. The LA Times says that our Middle East allies are in a state of panic. The Iraqi troops that we are training and hanging all our hopes on, are incompetent and have no fire discipline. Bush’s best buddy Hugo Chavez has just won another six year term and claims his victory is Bush’s defeat. Lebanon is on the verge of a civil war.
It’s time to get serious about impeachment. Some people will argue that impeachment is a moral imperative. I believe it is a national security imperative. It’s not a rule of law thing. It’s a protecting the national interests thing. So, what should we do?
First of all, impeaching Cheney (or forcing his resignation) is the first priority. Under no circumstances can we allow Dick Cheney to become President. Secondly, we would prefer not to have to give the advantages of incumbency to any of the Republicans (or Democrats) that are seeking the Presidency in 2008. Yet, no impeachment can be successful without at least the votes of 18 members of the GOP’s Senate caucus. So, we must strike a deal that is attractive to at least 18 Republican Senators. Making Nancy Pelosi (third in succession) the President is not a viable option and I don’t think she would even want the job at this point. So, we also need to find a constitutional solution for getting a replacement President.
Here is what we do. We find a mature, grown-up, retired Republican. Someone that is trusted by both sides, is not seeking the Presidency, and that is willing to be a place holder for the next eighteen months or so. Fmr. Sen. John Danforth comes to mind, so I’ll use him as an example.
First we find a Missourian Representative to resign. Then the Governor assigns Danforth as the replacement. The House elects Danforth the Speaker. After Bush and Cheney resign or are impeached and convicted, Danforth becomes President through the constitutional rules of succession. Then the House reconvenes and reelects Pelosi as Speaker. The Missourian representative is re-installed in their seat.
But, you are obviously asking, ‘why would the Republicans go along with it’? There are many reasons. When the Washington Post begins devoting its Sundays to debating how historically awful the President is, you know that the wheels have come off the bus. None of the GOP Presidential wannabes are closely aligned with Bush and Cheney, and none of them stand to benefit from their continuation in office. William Kristol recently remarked that George W. Bush is the last neo-con in office (and with Bolton resigning, that is getting closer to the truth). The bottom line is that the Iraq Study Group is Washington’s last ditch effort to rescue the Bush administration, and it looks like the Bush administration is going to look that gift-horse in the mouth. In short, the Establishment is done with this administration and the sooner they can get rid of them the better the Republicans chances are in 2008. So, it makes sense politically. It also makes sense from a national security point of view. We are crippled at the moment and without new leadership we don’t have the credibility to restore alliances and begin to set things on a better path. Every serious person knows this. But, even with all these considerations weighing in favor of impeachment, the GOP Senate still is unlikely to toss Bush/Cheney out unless they get something better than John Danforth as a caretaker President. They will probably need a little extra incentive. So…this is gonna hurt, but…
As part of the deal, we get Danforth to agree to nominate John McCain as his Vice-President. The Dems will agree to promptly confirm him. This will give the GOP frontrunner some advantages of incumbency, but also some risks, as he will have to run on an actual record in the White House. McCain should be able to muster a caucus of 18 for conviction.
With all the pieces in place, Pelosi will unleash Conyers, Waxman, Dingell, etc., in a full bore assault on Bush and Cheney’s criminality and corruption and incompetence, exposing lie after lie after lie. Building an unassailable case for impeachment will not be difficult, especially with the Press already exasperated and the GOP already in on the deal.
This is how real grown-ups would act, if there enough of them in Washington DC. At the end of the day we would have rid ourselves of the last of the neo-cons and could begin the healing process.
There are other solutions, and Danforth isn’t the only acceptable option. But something like this should be attempted. The world needs it to happen.
Absent a President and VP- the speaker fills the role of president- whoever the speaker is at the time. The speaker wouldn’t be sworn in as pres permanently, only fill that role.
Better to do the Agnew for ford swap- remove Cheney, tell Chimpy only Danforth will be approver, get him in as VP and then get chimpy out. same result but simpler path. Of course it relies on Chimpy cooperating- but threatened with Pres Pelosi, he might just go along.
are you suggesting we would have a special election?
Where would the special election come into play in all of this? I’m confused.
i don’t think it would or could.
Once someone succeeds to the Presidency they stay there until the next scheduled election.
Never having happened, my read is that the Speaker of the house would be acting president absent a VP available to take office.
Amendment XXV seems to preempt much of the succession language in Article II Section 1, which also distinguishes between the powers of the presidency “devolving” upon the VP and provision for some other officer (via statute) to “act” as president until the VP’s “disability” is removed.
A VP brought in to office via Amendment XXV proceedure would cure the “disability” existing in the office of the VP and become a proper rather than acting president.
Title 3, Ch. 1, Section 19 would require Pelosi to resign before taking office and would provide her with a full remainder of term- however this might be seen to conflict with Constitutional provisions and the language of the succession statute could be interpreted to allow for a New VP to become president. Although that reading is a stretch it can be argued to be the interpretation most likely to avoid a conflict with the constitution, moreover, if Congress went along with the process the Courts would likely see it as a political question.
FInally, IIRC the Speaker doesn’t have to be a representative, Article II section 2 provides that the House may choose its officers and doesn’t say from amongst the Representatives. Given that the House has absolute jurisdiction over its own affairs, they could elect a speaker Danforth at any time. Pelosi could step aside as speaker and allow Danforth in without him having to be placed into the house first via a complex process.
Nice. I think you are right about the Speaker. I had forgotten that.
There was no special election for Ford. Nixon appointed him VP after Agnew resigned and he was confirmed by Congress. I assume the same process could be used if Cheney were impeached.
OK, you are in the Senate. Bush appoints McCain to the VP.
Will you, as a Dem, vote to place McCain in the catbird seat for the 2008 election? I sure wouldn’t.
However, if we don’t vote, instant ad city. “Democrats are not abiding by the constitution.”
We want no situations in which Bush gets to have the positive spotlight.
He has 24 months until he’s out.
You can’t do any of this pie-in-the-sky stuff in 24 months. The Repukes will delay, delay, delay.
When they are not delaying, they will be saying “SEEEEEE, we told you – they have NO PROGRAMS, THEY HAVE NO IDEAS, THEY JUST HATE BUSH.”
Then we will be explaining.
Rule of politics # 126: When you’re explaining, you’re losing.
It is strange, before I read the full article..the only Republican I would trust to do what is right for America is Danforth.
but I don’t think there’s enough diplomacy, or spine, left in DC to pull it off w/out the ‘people’ demanding their removal.
Serious business, constitutional crises’.
I dunno we have enough courageous people in Congress to
mount the effort. And a with creeping recession, three war fronts that are likely to escalate further out of control make that impeachment dream less likely.
But I agree with Andrew Sullivan:
[.] “Bush is not a responsible president of the United States. He is a reckless gambler of other people’s money and other people’s lives.”
“It seems as if his prime objective is being able to stay the course in Iraq until the day he leaves office and hands the mess to a successor. It seems as if he cannot acknowledge any outcome that could acknowledge any failure.”
Let’s be reminded that articles of impeachment were brought against Bill Clinton for lying about a blow job – the traditional genteel thing expected of all honorable men. No lives lost.
In the corporate world a CEO who is found to be reckless gambler with the corporate treasury would be voted out by stakeholders and directors.
I’m not hopeful we have more than a handful of the right people who see it our way.
When I wrote my diary, I went moral/phiolosophical first, because that’s the way I think. But the arguments that get you on cable television aren’t the moral/philosphical ones. They’re the punchy, pragmatic ones.
The best functional arguments for impeachment aren’t the ones I laid out, because most people don’t have a “meta” view of the law and the Constitution. But I needed to get that off my chest.
The best argument I can think of is the foreign policy implications of a continued Bush presidency–something I’m going to write up later this week.
in Bush hatred.
I hated Bush before hating Bush was cool.
But, as I noted, we have neither the time nor the political capitol to play Impeach tag.
We need, in the next 24 months, to accomplish something.
We need Bush where he is. He will HELP the DEMOCRATS.
We will propose a popular program. He will veto it. We have instant ad fodder.
We will propose more popular programs. He will veto, veto, veto.
Our goal, as democrats, should be to get Bush to veto more bills than any president ever.
In 2008, we will know what we stand for. Whatever Bush vetoed.
I don’t think accomplishing everything you laid out on the other thread need be sacrificed in the attempt to compile a record of evidence against the executive. Done correctly, it doesn’t wear the “impeachment” label until there’s no other popular choice–when the record is part of the public mind, past its tipping point.
And I agree with this: “In 2008 we will know what we stand for. Whatever Bush vetoed.” But oversight is part of that picture as well as transparency.
I don’t think that oversight IN THE SERVICE OF impeachment is at all a good idea.
I believe that oversight for its own sake is required now.
He’s got the experience. </snark>
Interesting analysis. I think you’re probably very close to the mark here — the wheels are coming off and the bus is gaining speed. What’s left of the Republican Party has to realize that unless they do something fast, come November 2008 there won’t be anything left to defend. There will be an electoral bloodbath.
Wonder how the weather is in Paraguay this time of year?
As long as we’re getting all West Wingy, why not impeach Cheney, tell Bush that if he appoints such and such we’ll let him step down and not be impeached, such and such will become President and pardon him.
Oh, Cheney rots in jail.
because we would not have the votes for that.
You were expecting maybe DC inhabitants should be mensches?
After all this wheeling and dealing, getting republicans to go along with impeachment proceedings, etc, the Main Event will occur.
As fireworks explode everywhere, heralding a new day, monkeys will fly out of my ass.
Not just flying monkeys, but the actual flying monkeys from “Wizard of Oz”, led by a re-animated Margaret Hamilton riding a broom that skywrites “Surrender Not-Jenna!”
Which is the long way of expressing atrios’ frequent sentiment, “Nah. Gah. Hah.”
Sorry for being a downer.
Your poor ass.
You’re correct.
All of this pie-in-the-sky big rock candy mountain stuff is just blowing smoke.
WHO WILL BELL THAT CAT?
We do NOT have the horses to do it. We don’t have the TIME to do it.
It won’t happen, and so let’s just accomplish something, anything, to justify our existence as the Majority.
If this was going to happen it needed to start before now. Your plan makes rational sense, but I see the GOP congressthings running out the clock while going into poses of great concern for the country, blablabla. Even though Bush is obviously a disaster, impeachment would still require extensive investigations, hearings, and debate to formulate specific charges. I can see Cheney resigning before Congress makes the intricate deal Boo proposes.
To me, a crucial need is that the country come to terms with the fact that electing Bush was a huge wrongness, and seek the roots of that terrible error. It may be that it won’t matter all that much whether Bush stays in the WH. The process of investigation and, if legally warranted, impeachment, might accomplish what our system needs to regain some of its mental health.
maybe my radar is misattuned, but I don’t sense DC is in any mood to see this administration out, and I am damn sure the Saudis, Jordanians, Egyptians, and Turks are desperate for a change. Only the Israelis seem to be keeping a stiff upper lip and they are engaging in wishful thinking.
The neo-con experiment is over and it failed.
What to do now? Certainly not, ride it out.
We are 14 months from the Iowa caucases. 14 months. What happens will occur BEFORE the Iowa caucases.
It will take 6-8 months to hold the hearings, another 3-4 to run the actual impeachment. Impeachment would not occur before Dec 2007.
What would be the result? DESTRUCTION of the democratic majority in 2008.
Interesting thought experiment, but it ain’t gonna happen anytime soon. Right now, the general public isn’t near unhappy enough for this idea to get enough traction to attract 18 Republicans to defect. We’re only at the “Jimmy Carter and the hostages in Iran” level of public disgust – the wheels can fall off a lot worse yet. When we see hundreds of thousands protesting against the war and for impeachment, when we start getting media coverage of the bloodbaths in the Middle East, when we have another Kent State, then we’ll be getting a whole lot closer to this scenario becoming reality. What various Mideastern heads of state think of us isn’t enough to make it happen, unless we see a regional summit and are threatened with an oil boycott again. (And no Venezuela to come to our rescue, and we’re in no shape to go take the oil over – Oh, boy! Good planning there!)
It’s still easier for the PermaGov and Wall Street to start investing now in whoever is going to be the next president and ride out the storm. The investigation process would take virtually the remainder of Bush’s term – realistically, he only has to last six more months to run out the clock by the time you allow for investigations to run their course. Nothing is going to be happening in Congress at all to move this ball down the field until late January.
Should there be some crisis that really spooks the “Powers That Be” in the interim (which we’ll be able to judge by the stock market’s behavior), Cheney will retire for “health reasons” at their direction, Danforth (a good call, BTW!) will assume the vice-presidency, and Bush will be “pursuaded” to retire in exchange for various pardons. Getting rid of Cheney – like getting rid of Agnew, is the key. And don’t think he’s not aware of this and milking it for all he can!
Realistically, however, the stars have only started to form the necessary constellation for radical change to occur. It’s gonna get a whole lot more “interesting” yet. Watch the stock market like a weathervane. When big business decides BushCo is no longer a useful investment, then change becomes a whole lot more likely…
You have an interesting take on this.
I want progress on medical coverage. Impeachment would stop that.
I want progress on college affordability. Impeachment would stop that.
I want progress on the Iraq war. Impeachment would stop that.
I want progress on global warming. Impeachment would stop that.
I want progress on tax fairness. Impeachment would stop that.
I want progress on science in the public sphere. Impeachment would stop that.
I want progress on NCLB. Impeachment would stop that.
I want progress on election fairness. Impeachment would stop that.
I want progress on federalism issues. Impeachment would stop that.
I want progress on election technology. Impeachment would stop that.
I want progress on judges. Impeachment would stop that.
I want progress on blaming Bush for his fuckups. I want him squarely in the seat of responsibility while we remind Americans of what a fuckup he is.
In fact, the Republicans DESPERATELY want us to spend the next 2 years trying to impeach Bush, and not doing anything useful. That way, in 2008, they can say “All they can do is blame Bush for everything.”
The urge to impeach is understandable, but fundamentally confused and misdirected. Let us show the AMerican people that we can accomplish something. When Bush vetoes popular legislation, we can use that against all rePukes in 2008.
Copied from another impeachment diary.
I’m inclined to agree. Impeachment — not the content but the process and the politics — will hog all the attention for the next 2 years. There’s something to be said for letting Bush stay around to take the heat for his crimes. Investigate like crazy. If you come up with a smoking gun, impeach. But only then.
In the meantime, show what a Dem congress can do for America. If Bush vetoes everything, show what we could do if we had a Dem in the White House. I don’t see a successful impeachment increasing Dem chances in 08. Being a breath of fresh air will accomplish that better.
Seems like Booman is desperate to end the pain, as we all are, but there’s no way to do that. America did the wrong thing, and allowed the wrong thing to happen. Now we’ll all have to pay, guilty or not. That’s how it works. If the Dems lay the foundation now, there’s a chance that something new and better can arise from the ashes in 2 years.
I am as against bush and cheney as anyone. I knew what sort of debacle we had in store, and knew, through friends that a major mobilization was planned for october of 2002 for war.
That being said, your entire column is a long peyote fueled dream. Do you honestly believe any democrat would give up the speakership for this pipe dream? If you do, then you do not understand the human animal. These democratic congressmen have been eating shit since 1994 when the republicans took over. Now they are going to have some fun.
As to the idea the georgie would ever resign, you have to be smoking crack with him to think that he is going to ever leave. And impeachment? The republicans impeached clinton as a payback for Nixon in 72. Does anyone think that now that the religious right has control of the republicans, that they would show some sense? Naw, didn’t think so.
After reading your proposal, I feel like you’re Egon, and I’m Venkman.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s president, is in the lead right now for TIME’s person of the year too.
…too bad we can’t bring him over here and make him speaker of the house! 😉
Cheney has an out – his health. He can resign at any time. I think he probably will. Then a possible candidate for 2008 will be appointed and the sheep in Congress will rubber stamp it again. Bush will be indicted and resign. The new guy (possibly a woman) will pardon the front man and here we go again. I was suspicious when Nixon was pardoned. I wondered about the message this sent to next person who wanted to shit-can the Constitution. My wish is that we convict him no matter what – that we don’t miss this opportunity to clean-up; that he and his folks are either jailed or deported.