Congratulations to Autarkh who posted a diary entitled How to Make Impeachment Viable? Bipartisanship yesterday on Dailykos, and I see is front paged here. He managed to say what I attempting with a wit and style than I can't manage. Our messages are almost identical, even though my approach, having worked on the diary for several days now, is different.

One reason it took so long for me to post on Dailykos, where it was originally posted, is the rancor expressed on that site tends to lead concepts like "bipartisanship" to be dismissed, or even considered appeasement by many. So, I continued to try to find more historical evidence to make my point so that it could be heard by the readers there. Actually it was received respectfully, based on the comments. The following was the diary as it appeared there with only a very few edits:

Let's start by clarifying our terms. Impeachment has a range of meanings on this site depending on the tone of the diary/story. But our underlying goal although not the true definition of the word is actually removing Bush and Cheney from office. What is rarely acknowledged is that this can only be achieved with the support of one third of the Republicans in the Senate.

This means that the first time in our nation's history, our impeachment goal would mean a change of the party of the executive branch.

Let us assume that Bush's trashing of the constitution continues to accelerate, and that many of his party in Congress turn on him, deciding they would like to survive to be re-elected. As much as they may reject Bush, for principled or pragmatic reasons, they would not allow a Democrat to become president.

We have a rogue president who is also leader of the Republican party. This party differs from the Democrats in many areas, most of which have no relation to crimes justifying impeachment. They are for lower taxes, more religion in government, ending abortion, more aggressive military, less protection of the poor against predatory business practices and fewer environmental restrictions to name just a few. These are political values that are decided with each election; and in 2004, as much as we may not like it, the people elected a President who supports these positions.

Just how badly do we want Bush/Cheney to be removed? Partisan Democrats would, of course, want Bush/Cheney out and replaced by one from their party. As much as we may ignore the evidence, this is not possible, as there is not a single Republican Senator, much less the eighteen needed, who would vote for this.

Although the impeachment clause is designed to remove individuals for "high crimes and misdemeanors" our anger at his subverting the constitution is conflated with our rage at his refusal to end the war, which while being terrible policy, is within his prerogative as President.

Those who are demanding impeachment of two men, are also in effect demanding that the Republican party relinquish the office that they won in open election. This makes it important to ask whether those who are demanding impeachment are willing to remove these two men if the best that could be achieved is substituting another Republican.

Such a Republican would agree to be a caretaker for the rest of the term, meaning agreeing not to run in 2008. This issue of separating impeachment of the individual with change of party of the President was addressed in the period before Gerald Ford became Vice President:

(Adopted from Wikipedia article , verified by diarist)
House Speaker Carl Albert was first-in-line as the Watergate scandal made President Nixon's removal or resignation possible. Albert openly questioned whether it was appropriate for him, a Democrat, to assume the powers and duties of the presidency when there was a public mandate for the presidency to be held by a Republican.

Albert announced that should he need to assume the presidential powers and duties, he would do so only as a caretaker. Presumably, Acting President Albert would have appointed a Republican Vice President and upon the confirmation of that individual Albert would have resigned and that person would have become President. .

The details of succession as impeachment of Nixon came closer and Ford had not yet been confirmed was complex, as shown in this article about a proposal for a special election available to those with Times Select. What is interesting is there was a general consensus that Nixon's impeachment should not result in a Democrat becoming president.

The method of ensuring that there would be a Republican replacing Bush can be done in Congress. The first by a simple majority vote in the house, and the second with a two thirds vote of both houses to overcome a veto.

The first is possible if there were a Republican member of the House of Representatives who would be acceptable to both parties. A majority of this body, immediately before the vote to impeach, would vote this person to be Speaker of the House. He/she would then assume the position of President upon the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

The other method is to change the order of succession to what it was before the law was changed in 1947. This would make the Secretary of State the next in line, and Condoleeza Rice would assume the position.

Right now partisan politics is paramount in all three branches of Government. But there are other natural divisions, that of the institutions that define these components. When FDR wanted to change the number of Supreme Court justices, criticized as "court packing " he was thwarted by members of his own party who identified with the other branches of government and did not want to see their authority, or that of the Supreme Court diminished.

(adapted from Wikipedia article.) The opposition, led by (Vice President) John Garner, strongly opposed the plan as an abuse of presidential authority because they believed the bill would have given the President indirect control of the Supreme Court by adding justices that favored his New Deal programs.

....On July 22 1937, the Senate voted 70-20 to send the judicial-reform measure back to committee, where all the controversial language was stripped from it. The Senate passed the revised legislation a week later, and Roosevelt reluctantly signed it into law Aug. 26.

The Democrats of 1937 wouldn't accept a unitary executive, even if it was one of their own.

And the Supreme Court itself, before the Bush v. Gore travesty, had this same sense of institutional pride that transcended party identification. They demonstrated this when they required Nixon to turn over the tapes, and when they required Clinton to face the civil trial brought by Paula Jones. In both of these cases the court united unanimously to defend principle over the interests of their party's president.

If Bush continues along his road of defying the constitutional principles of tripartite government, public sentiment may well shift to make what is now unachievable inevitable. Personally, while I agree with most of us here that he deserves to be impeached, this must not be seen as a mandate to overturn the decision of the voters, who not only elected him as an individual but voted for his party. If we want a Democrat as President, it should be the decision of the people in the general election of November 2008.

If we are serious about removing George W. Bush and Richard Cheney from office, as I believe we should be, we must demonstrate this by eschewing extraneous political gain. The only way to win the support of one third of the Republican Senators is to allow a Republican to hold the position of President for the end of the term.

Doing this focuses and legitimizes our anger. It tells the voters of both parties that we demand this President and Vice President be removed for their specific crimes, that we are not using this as an occasion to overturn a general election. Not only will this increase the possibility of removing these two men, it will make our impeachment argument all the more compelling. And it will further demonstrate to all that the Democratic party is true to both the letter and the spirit of our Constitution.