The Founding Fathers Knew

As reported on The Huffington Post and many other places, if George W. Bush were to run for election today, he would lose to the Democratic nominee (any nominee, apparently – and again, this is discounting the possibility of fraud in Miami and Ohio last year in the presidential election). Also, indictments in the Valerie Plame matter are due at any time, and according to the latest I’ve read, Dick Cheney revealed her identity to “Scooter” Libby, who then told Judy Miller and others. With that in mind, it is not a stretch to acknowledge the possibility that Cheney is guilty of a felony and working out the details of some kind of a plea bargain at this moment (and Karl Rove, "Bush's Brain," is involved in this unholy mix also apparently).

The House Majority Leader (Tom DeLay) has been arraigned, and the SEC is looking into potential securities fraud involving the Senate Majority Leader (Bill Frist).

I don’t know about you, but this sounds like a government in crisis to me. The question, of course, is what do we do about it.

Based on a tip from a friend of mine, I happened to come across this link to The Declaration of Independence upon which this country declared that it no longer considered itself subject to British rule in 1776. Most of us are extremely familiar with the first sentence of this document that pertains to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” But if you read on, you will also find these words:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter it or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

There it is. There’s the answer.

But first, let me say this. I realize that this document was written and approved in an entirely different context than the one in which we currently live. This country was fighting for its very existence in a shooting war on our soil. But except for active hostilities and combat on this continent, how different is the current context from the one our country faced when it separated itself from The Crown? We are systematically oppressed on many levels by the people who hold positions in government in the name of representing us (mainly the Repugs, but too many chicken Dems also). Our jobs, our savings and pensions, our homes, our environment, the schools our kids attend…many of these institutions and critical parts of our lives and that of our families are under attack by the administration of George W. Bush and the sycophantic Republican congress of this country.

So here is my idea, in two parts (and even though the Declaration allows us to abolish our government, I am proposing only to modify it):

- From the date it is announced, let there be a 30-day period of campaigning (no more, no less) among a slate of 10 candidates for 5 positions on what would be a temporary ruling council in place of the current president and vice president of our government. The ruling party would have no more than 3 of their candidates on the council, and the council would dissolve after the 2008 presidential election. Names I can think of for the council off the top of my head? For the Dems, John Kerry, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, or Pat Leahy. For the Repugs, John McCain, Chuck Hagel, Lindsay Graham, Susan Collins, or Arlen Specter. This could be the actual slate itself (I'm proposing that the candidates come from the Senate because it would entail a smaller candidate pool that would be easier to manage in the 30-day timeframe and also because the Senate is a body of supposedly more "select" individuals in this country than the House based on traditions of British law after which our government is modeled to a degree).

- Also as part of this election, one Democrat and one Republican would run in both the House and the Senate to determine who would be majority leader in that body. The winner obviously would get the right to name party members to the committees for that body, and believe me when I tell you that that is where the REAL power lies in our government. This would be subject to change pending the outcome of next year’s congressional elections.

Let’s not forget as well that there is a precedent for this based on how other countries hold their elections, holding votes of “no confidence,” and declaring a 30-day period until the next election for campaigning. This is the duration of campaigning for elections in the United Kingdom, for example.

So, if you agree with me, here’s what you do; write to your politicians and your area newspapers and tell them you’re serious about this (also put this idea out there on blog comments at other sites or mention it when phoning into radio talk shows). This is how we “get the ball rolling.”

I’m not trying to steal any of the “Impeach Bush” momentum through the great efforts of other bloggers including The Bulldog and The Martian Anthropologist. It’s just that I think we have a bigger problem here than the removal of a single individual from office.

Are the odds long? Of course. Would this be an uphill battle? Next question.

The percentage here is tiny, but there’s no percentage at all if we do nothing.

Update 10/27: And lest you think I'm kidding (David Obey is truly an unsung hero)...