Archive for the ‘John Conyers’ Category
Yesterday, Rep. John Dingell told Jon Stewart that “People are afraid and frustrated and a lot of times they don’t know who they’re mad at.”
With all due respect to Rep. Dingell, that’s utter nonsense. The American people know exactly who they’re upset with and why they’re upset. Mostly, they’re upset that the Democrats aren’t listening to us. They’re upset that Democrats are doing their best to control every facet of our lives, whether it’s taking over the health care industry, financial institutions, student loans, car manufacturers and the energy industry.
It’s time that Rep. Dingell quit with the spin and stop denying the fact that this is the most arrogant, most secretive Congress in history. It’s so secretive that they’ve written a health care law that they intended to impose on everyone except themselves, only to find out that they didn’t exempt themselves from it.
This provision likely would’ve been stripped from the bill if the bill hadn’t been written by Democrats in Harry Reid’s office.
We’re upset with the amount of reckless spending that’s happening in DC, too. Never in my lifetime have I seen spending be this out of control. It was bad under President Bush but it’s exponentially worse under the Obama administration’s control.
The Democrats’ health care legislation raises taxes by $670,000,000,000. If the House Cap and Trade is signed into law, that would represent another $1,900,000,000,000 in tax increases, not to mention gas prices and home heating bills that “would necessarily skyrocket” according to President Obama.
That’s without considering how Cap And Trade would bankrupt the coal companies, driving the economies in Indiana, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky and Ohio into total ruin.
John Dingell has served too long in DC. He needs to go. He reminds me of a doddering old Sen. Howell Heflin during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. Sen. Heflin was reading from the Democrats’ talking points when Justice Thomas told him that he’d gotten his facts wrong. Sen. Heflin’s response was first to flash a look of confusion, then saying that he was confused.
Sen. Heflin never ran for re-election again.
Unfortunately, Rep. Dingell will likely be re-elected as long as he wants to serve. The only things he’s contributed to Congress and to Michigan is higher taxes and his being named, along with Rep. John Conyers, CAIR-Michigan’s men of the year.
But I digress.
Seriously, I wouldn’t doubt that Rep. Dingell thinks that people are upset for no good reason. Once you’re inside DC’s echochamger, the whole world changes. It’s a world where Speaker Pelosi’s words are treated as gospel. In the real world, it’s the people’s words that should be treated as reality.
The ultimate test would be to have Rep. Dingell talk with people on the street in Michigan, find out what their priorities and their worries are. Then I’d have him ask them whether they’ve ever attended a TEA Party rally. I’ll bet that the TEA Party people that Rep. Dingell would talk with would know what they’re upset about.
Who knows? He might actually learn something and become a public servant again.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Earlier this morning, I wrote about the difficulties John Conyers finds himself in. It turns out that Conyers isn’t the only Democrat facing an uphill fight for re-election:
It’s the highest stakes ever for a Nevada election, and former boxer Sen. Harry Reid is on the ropes early. Either Republican Danny Tarkanian or Sue Lowden would knock out Reid in a general election, according to a recent poll of Nevada voters.
The results suggest the Democratic Senate majority leader will have to punch hard and often in order to retain his position as the most accomplished politician in state history, in terms of job status.
Nevadans favored Tarkanian over Reid 49 percent to 38 percent and Lowden over Reid 45 percent to 40 percent, according to the poll.
Sen. Reid’s approval ratings have been in the crapper for over 2 years. I said then that Reid wouldn’t just have an uphill fight on his hands but that he’d be the most likely Democrat to lose his seat. I stand by that opinion. In fact, considering that he’s running in a decidedly anti-Democrat year, I’ll suggest that Sen. Reid won’t be the only prominent Democrat to lose. (I still think that Rob Simmons will defeat Christopher Dodd.)
I pity Reid’s campaign spokespeople. Here’s what they’re forced to do:
“He fights for Nevada on those issues and others every day and he’ll continue that battle to get our economy back on track,” Reid spokesman Jon Summers said. Reid also will remind voters, and influential fundraisers, that his in-state connections and national clout can pay dividends for all of Nevada.
“Senator Reid’s leadership for Nevada has earned him broad support, including from nearly 150 Republican leaders in Nevada who recognize that he is a powerful voice for Nevada,” Summers said.
QUESTION FOR MR. SUMMERS: If Sen. Reid’s support is so broad, why is he garnering only 40 percent against two unknowns?
Anytime that an incumbent is having difficulty reaching the mid-forties, he’s history. The only way an incumbent wins in that environment is if he got an ACORN-driven wave of support. That or if he overwhelmingly wins the cemetery vote and if the cemetery vote has a particularly high turnout.
Short of that, it’s time to get out the jelly because Reid’s toast.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Though we’re still fifteen months away from the 2010 midterms, I’m already looking for indicators of how much trouble the Democrats are in. I’d say I found an indicator in this post. Here’s what I read that left me a little astonished:
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) could face a tough reelection race in 2010, according to a new, independent poll released this weekend.
40 percent of Conyers’s constituents said he deserved reelection, according to a poll conducted earlier this month by the Lansing, Mich.-based Deno Noor Polling, in conjunction with the Rossman Group and Perricone Group. 44 percent of Detroiters represented by Conyers said they would prefer to elect someone else. 15 percent were unsure or didn’t know.
These are difficult numbers for an incumbent. Anytime the incumbent is that far below 40 percent, re-election is difficult, assuming Republicans can find a competent candidate to run against him.
I’m not guaranteeing this will be a GOP pickup. In fact, I could easily picture Conyers retiring in favor of a younger man that isn’t carrying Monica Conyers’ baggage on his back.
Whatever happens with Conyers, Democrats shouldn’t expect much help from President Obama. Though his supporters try to put a positive face on things in this article, there’s no way to take them seriously:
Democratic activists said that Mr. Obama’s election last fall provides ample proof that he is capable of overcoming gaffes and bad poll numbers. Whether he will do that this fall, though, remains clouded by a health care debate that is staggering in its complexity.
Deputy press secretary Bill Burton said the administration has long recognized that it could see dents in the widespread support the president garnered when he first took office if it undertook an initiative as potentially divisive as health care reform.
“If getting health care reform done were a matter of making easy decisions and doing politically popular things, it probably would have gotten done a long time ago,” Mr. Burton said.
What these spinners aren’t mentioning, though, is that then-Sen. Obama made his comeback while people still trusted him and before they saw his extremist agenda. President Obama was touted as a political healer with all the right policies to cure what ailed the United States.
Independents are abandoning him like he was radioactive. That’s because President Obama isn’t trusted like he was last year. After the election, I said that President Obama should be frightened because prior to his election, he was seen as successful because of his speaking ability. I said in January that he’d be judged on whether he got things done that have improve Americans’ lives.
Thus far, he’s failed that test miserably.
Rasmussen has tracked President Obama’s slippage since President Obama’s inauguration. Yesterday, Rasmussen’s polling showed President Obama with a -14 rating:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 27% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -14. These figures mark the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President. The previous low of -12 was reached on July 30.
By comparison, President Obama’s Approval Index was +30 on January 22.
Democrats smiled with confidence when they ran against President Bush in 2006. Now the tide has turned. Now they get to find out what it’s like to run with an unpopular president tied around their necks.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Washington’s buzzing with excitement after news broke that Rep. Henry Waxman
rolled the Blue Puppy Democrats with a few minor trinkets and Mike Ross agreed to a compromise on health care reform. This proves, to me at least, that the Blue Dogs as conservative Democrats are more fiction than reality. Here’s details of the compromise:
As a result of the deal, party leaders have agreed to put off a House vote until the fall, giving members more time to digest the legislation, and opponents more time to attack it.
The Blue Dogs also succeeded in cutting $100 billion from the overall cost of the bill, bringing the total price tag under $1 trillion. The legislation will now exempt small businesses with a payroll less than $500,000 from paying for any government-sponsored health coverage, double the $250,000 in the initial draft. Doctors and other health care providers would also be allowed to negotiate their payment rates with the government-sponsored health care arm.
The new version of the bill also has a breakthrough on the concept of health care â€œco-ops,â€ seen by some as an alternative to a public plan. States would be allowed to create co-ops for residents to buy private insurance. But the Waxman-Ross deal will also keeps the “public option” of government-sponsored health care.
The most appalling thing in this compromise is that Waxman and Pelosi kept the public option intact. As long as that provision is in health care reform, the legislation should be thought of as rat poison, albeit in this case watered down rat poison. Trimming $100,000,000,000 off the legislation sounds significant but it isn’t.
It isn’t because there still aren’t provisions in this bill that deal with health care costs. There still aren’t provisions in this bill that prevent rationing of care for seniors, which will happen with the public option.
Here’s what conservatives need to focus on through this development:
1. Any plan that includes a public ‘option’ guarantees rationing for seniors.
2. This bill does nothing to slow down health care cost inflation. Price controls aren’t the same as cutting the cost of health care.
3. This bill does nothing to introduce ‘level-playing-field’ competition. The only ‘competition’ included is the slanted battlefield competition of government-takeover health insurance and private sector competition.
4. The only thing that Chairman Waxman cared about throughout these negotiations was keeping the public option intact. He got that so he won this fight.
5. Blue Dog Democrats’ priorities in this fight weren’t about real reform based on competition, quality and improved access. The Blue Dog Democrats’ highest priority was in negotiating a lower sticker price to sell to their constituents. Everything else was unimportant to these Democrats.
What’s essentially happened is that Blue Dog Democrats admittee that they’re liberals who are concerned with image more than they’re concerned with putting legislation together that reforms the health insurance system.
After the Blue Dogs got rolled on Waxman-Markey, aka the National Energy Tax, I called them the “Thirty Pieces of Silver Democrats.” I admit that that’s a little undeserved but today’s deal proves yet again that the words Blue Dog Democrats and conservatives don’t belong together. Blue Dog Democrats are still liberals. They just aren’t as liberal as people like Maxine Waters, Barney Frank, John Conyers and Speaker Pelosi.
It’s time that the NRCC started targeting Blue Dogs with ads highlighting their conservative talk when they’re in their district vs. their votes in THE DISTRICT.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
This AP Article quotes Barney Frank spinning his head off. Here’s what he’s quoted as saying:
That was a remarkable accusation by Republicans against Republicans, said Rep. Barney Frank, (D-MA), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee: “Because somebody hurt their feelings, they decided to punish the country.”
Rep. Frank is the one who punished the country. He didn’t punish it today. Instead, he punished it 4 years ago by pretending that Fannie and Freddie didn’t have problems:
Frank was adamant that â€œthese two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis.â€ When the White House warned of â€œsystemic risk for our financial systemâ€ unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.
The Bush administration was right to be “more concerned about financial safety than about housing.” I wish Rep. Frank had been “more concerned about financial safety than about housing.” If he’d paid attention, we might’ve reformed these GSE’s and saved taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.
It isn’t the least bit unfair to say that this could’ve been averted had Democrats like Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Greg Meeks, Artur Davis and Lacy Clay paid attention to Christopher Shays, Ed Joyce and Richard Baker way back in 2004. This video highlights the Democrats’ role in this crisis:
It’s time for the Right Blogosphere to highlight Barney Frank’s statements at this 2004 hearing. They’ve been proven wrong in the extreme. I think he knew they were wrong because I think Barney Frank is a smart guy.
These vulnerable Democrats voted no on this bill:
Altmire, Barrow, Boyda, Cazayoux, Childers, Giffords, Gillibrand, Kagen, Lampson, Shuler, Stupak, Mark Udall (CO), Tom Udall (NM), Walz and John Yarmuth.
These committee chairs in safe seats voted no, too:
Conyers, Delahunt, Collin Peterson and Bennie Thompson.
If this was that important, why couldn’t Ms. Pelosi 12 of these 19 Democrats to vote for the bill? It’s time we laid blame where it rightfully belongs: at the Democrats’ doorstep. They ignored the problem when it was a manageable problem, then voted in droves against the bill that supposedly would’ve fixed the crisis.
To say they aren’t to blame is laughable.
Technorati: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Maxine Waters, Barney Frank, Greg Meeks, Artur Davis, Lacy Clay, John Conyers, Collin Peterson, Bennie Thompson, Ed Joyce, Christopher Shays, Reform, Accountability, Financial Crisis
I’m a proud contributor to the NRCC. I’m a proud contributor to the NRCC because the House Republicans have fought the good fight against the dictatorial anti-drilling rule of Speaker Pelosi. Despite the Democrats’ latest anti-drilling legislation, John Boehner and the House GOP Caucus aren’t leaving the battlefield. Here’s Leader Boehner’s latest press release on the subject:
Prior to todayâ€™s debate on the No Child Left Inside Act (H.R. 3036), House Republicans will move to force a debate and vote on legislation to keep the number issue on the minds of the American people, high energy costs, on the radar of this Democratic Congress. The measure, sponsored by House Republican Policy Committee Chairman Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), would put Democrats on notice that Congress should not adjourn until a real, comprehensive energy reform bill is enacted into law.
Two days ago, the Democratic Majority passed a sham bill they claim would increase American energy production and lower gas prices, but in reality, it was designed to provide political cover for vulnerable Democrats who have promised their constituents they would support pro-energy legislation. An editorial in this morningâ€™s Charleston Daily Mail slammed the bogus â€œno energyâ€ bill:
â€œHouse Republican Leader John Boehner said the rushed-through bill was â€˜a hoax on the American peopleâ€™ because it wonâ€™t increase offshore production of American oil. This is intended for one reason…so the Democrats can say we voted on energy,â€™ Boehner said. The sham bill passed with no hearings, no testimony from oil executives, and no discussion at allâ€¦ Pelosiâ€™s plan is a slap in the faces of Americans. Drilling wouldnâ€™t be allowed within 50 miles of a coast, which is where the oil is. The Interior Department estimates that 88 percent of the 18 billion barrels of oil believed to exist where leasing is banned would remain off limits under the Democratsâ€™ bill. What kind of nonsense is that?â€
On Tuesday, Republicans actually gave Democrats the opportunity to vote for a real, bipartisan energy bill to begin taking steps toward lower gas prices. In fact, the measure was co-authored by Reps. John Peterson (R-PA) and Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) and co-sponsored by 38 Democrats, a sure sign that it would receive strong, bipartisan support on the House floor, right? Not so fast. Democrats actually defeated the proposal, with 24 of its own Democratic co-sponsors (including Rep. Abercrombie) flip-flopped and voted against it! Does that sound like the actions of legislators committed to lower gas prices for the men and women they represent in Congress? Of course not. Democrats were just looking for a vote, any vote, that looked like it was pro-American energy so they can move a step closer to skipping town once again.
On August 1, Democrats adjourned Congress for five weeks without voting on an â€œall of the aboveâ€ plan to lower gas prices, and the American people were outraged. Have Speaker Pelosi and her Democratic colleagues learned their lesson? When the House votes on todayâ€™s GOP proposal to keep Congress in town until a real energy bill is signed into law, families, seniors, and small businesses across America will find out.
I said here that Ms. Pelosi’s bill was a sham. I said here that the difference between the voting habits of Blue Dog Democrats and such radical lefties as Dennis Kucinich, Maxine Waters, Baghdad Jim McDermott and John Conyers was…almost nonexistent.
The House GOP said that they won’t leave for the election recess without attempting to force “a debate and vote on legislation to keep the number issue on the minds of the American people, high energy costs, on the radar of this Democratic Congress.”
Let’s compare the House GOP’s leadership with the Democrats’ hysterics-prone leadership. John Boehner has provided strong leadership. He’s also had a strong supporting team. Mike Pence, Thad McCotter, Tom Price, Marsha Blackburn and Michele Bachmann were just a handful of leaders that pushed the energy debate. Without the fight that this group fought, Pelosi’s Democrats wouldn’t have brought another bill forward.
Main Street wants…needs really…lower gas prices. The environmental extremists will do anything to protect the earth. If that means ruining the economy, then that’s fine with them. That’s why Speaker Pelosi’s hands have been tied throughout this debate.
Thanks to the tireless effort of the House GOP leadership, we can now legitimately ask if the American people are better served by a leadership that puts Main Street’s interests first or if they want someone that puts the environmental extremists’ interests first.
For most people, that isn’t a difficult question to answer, which is why I still expect Republicans to gain seats in the House.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Yesterday, Minority Leader John Boehner asked whether Blue Dog Democrats would vote for H R 6899, Speaker Pelosi’s latest non-energy energy bill. The results are in and they tell quite the tale. Here are all of the Blue Dog Democrats voting for this non-energy energy bill:
Arcuri, Baca, Bean, Bishop (GA), Boren, Boswell, Boyd (FL), Cardoza, Carney, Chandler, Cooper, Costa, Cramer, Davis, Lincoln, Donnelly, Ellsworth, Giffords, Gillibrand, Gordon, Harman, Herseth Sandlin, Hill, Holden, Mahoney (FL), Matheson, Melancon, McIntyre, Patrick Murphy, Michaud, Moore (KS), Peterson (MN), Pomeroy, Salazar, Schiff, Linda SÃ¡nchez, Loretta Sanchez, Scott (GA), Space, Thompson (MS), Tanner and Wilson (OH)
Of the 53 BDD’s, 42 voted for H.R. 6899. Only John Barrow and Jim Marshall voted against it. That means that 80 percent of the Blue Dog Democrats voted the same way as such environmental extremists as Dennis Kucinich, John Conyers, Maxine Waters, Henry Waxman, George Miller and Jim McDermott.
What’s really gotta hurt the BDD’s is this quote from their intrepid leader:
“We’re not trying to give incentives to drill, we’re giving incentives to invest in renewables and natural gas that will take us where we need to go,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told reporters before the vote.
I hope that the NRCC is paying attention. They should be making videos as we speak highlighting that quote. Anytime one of these representatives says that they voted to increase drilling, the video should run with Ms. Pelosi’s quote plastered on the screen for at least 5 seconds, followed by the representative saying that he/she voted for more drilling.
Personally, I’d love hearing Ms. Pelosi explain how that quote fits with this part of her official statement:
The legislation is a bold step forward, helping end our dependence on foreign oil and increase our national security. It launches a clean renewable energy future that creates new American jobs, expands domestic energy supply, including new offshore drilling, and invents and builds more efficient vehicles, buildings, homes, and infrastructure. It will lower costs to consumers and protect the interests of taxpayers. It is a comprehensive strategy, and the product of bipartisan compromise. It offers Republicans who want a comprehensive approach the choice to make sure Big Oil pays its fair share.
Simply put, the bill doesn’t increasing drilling in any meaningful way. The green energy options are years away. This isn’t “a bold step forward.” It’s just more of the same. How is this appreciably different than the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 that President Bush signed in 2007? Here’s what the White House fact sheet says about EISA:
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 will help reduce America’s dependence on oil by:
Increasing the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022. Although the President proposed a more ambitious alternative fuels standard in his State of the Union Address, the RFS in the bill he signed today represents a nearly five-fold increase over current levels.
Reducing U.S. demand for oil by setting a national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, which will increase fuel economy standards by 40 percent and save billions of gallons of fuel. Last January, the President called for the first statutory increase in fuel economy standards for automobiles since they were enacted in 1975, and the bill he signed today delivers on that request. The bill also includes an important reform the President has called for that allows the Transportation Department to issue “attribute-based standards,” which will ensure that increased fuel efficiency does not come at the expense of automotive safety.
The bill includes provisions to improve energy efficiency in lighting and appliances, as well as requirements for Federal agency efficiency and renewable energy use that will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example:
The bill will require all general purpose lighting in Federal buildings to use Energy StarÂ® products or products designated under the Energy Department’s Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) by the end of Fiscal Year 2013.
The bill will update the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to set new appliance efficiency standards that will save Americans money and energy. The Act amends the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) to prescribe or revise standards affecting regional efficiency for heating and cooling products, procedures for new or amended standards, energy conservation, energy efficiency labeling for consumer electronic products, residential boiler efficiency, electric motor efficiency, and home appliances.
The bill will establish an Office of High-Performance Green Buildings (OHPGB) in the U.S. General Services Administration. This office will promote green building technology implementation in Federal buildings.
Neither bill does anything appreciable to increase domestic oil supplies or shrink our dependence on foreign-bought oil. If that isn’t the definition of same old, same old, then a definition doesn’t exist for that cliche.
Here’s the graphic on Ms. Pelosi’s Speaker website:
The last bullet point says that this bill will produce “greater energy efficiency and conservation.” for the sake of this discussion, let’s say that that’s true. The next question I’d ask is whether this bill has better efficiency provisions than the efficiency provisions in the American Energy Act. My bet is that they aren’t.
This bill isn’t going anywhere. President Bush said that he’ll veto it if it reaches his desk. That isn’t likely because it’s likely that the bill won’t be considered by the Senate:
Even if the bill reaches the Senate, he said, the bill is in trouble, given strong opposition by Sen. Mary Landrieu, (D-LA), who calls it â€œdead on arrivalâ€ since it fails to provide revenue sharing between the states and federal government. â€œThe Senate will never pass a bill without revenue sharing, in my view,â€ she was quoted as saying.
Ms. Pelosi just said that the bill doesn’t provide incentives for increased drilling.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Barack Obama says he isn’t surprised by the snippets from Scott McClellan’s book. Why am I not surprised? Here’s what he said:
“The fact that he said it obviously is unusual,” the likely Democratic nomineee responded.
He added: â€œI havenâ€™t read it. I donâ€™t think that the substance is particularly surprising. I think many of us have been troubled by the lack of straightforwardness in this administration. The only news is that somebody within the administration has confirmed what a lot of us have thought for some time.â€
This is actually quite revealing. It isn’t a stretch to think that Sen. Obama agrees with John Conyers, Russ Feingold and the rest of the Tinfoil Hat Brigade. Why else would he think that President Bush manipulated us into war with Iraq?
Certainly the only ‘proof’ that’s been produced that President Bush lied us into war’ were the discredited Downing Street Memos. Thus far, only the Tin Hat Brigade has bought into that farcical tale.
Sen. Obama’s reaction also tells us that he doesn’t need documented proof to presume Republicans are nefarious and dishonest. Whatever happened to independent verification and fact-checking? Does Sen. Obama think that that’s a right only afforded to liberals?
Until Mr. McClellan offers documented, dated proof of his allegations, I’ll consider them just that: allegations. After much rehashing of this stuff, I won’t hold my breath on seeing documented proof, whether it’s from Mr. McClellan, the Wilsons or anyone else from the Tinfoil Hat Brigade.
The postpartisan facade will fade fast if Sen. Obama continues hanging around with the Tinfoil Hat Brigade. It’s already disappeared as far as I’m concerned.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Back in 2006, Elwyn Tinklenberg touted himself as a moderate. He also said that he’d vote to impeach President Bush. My question is why he’d vote to impeach President Bush. Here’s what Tinklenberg said just prior to the CD-6 endorsing convention:
“I [Elwyn Tinklenberg] would support a resolution for impeachment if it was brought to me. I would not introduce one. I think there are so many issues that have been waiting for resolution. So many issues that have to be addressed from the war to the economy to health care that we need to move on and move on aggressively.” Source: Star Tribune, May 10, 2006
Mr. Tinklenberg must answer this basic question: What did President Bush do that rises to the level of impeachment? Did he cause a constitutional crisis? If President Bush didn’t cause a constitutional crisis, then why would Mr. Tinklenberg say that he’d vote for impeachment?
Mr. Tinklenberg said this to pander to the extremists in MoveOn.org. He resisted making any sort of statement on this until just prior to the endorsing convention. Why should we take seriously a man who’d take his constitutional duties that unseriously? This isn’t just any issue. This is about the House of Representatives declaring that the Commander-In-Chief betrayed his oath of office by doing what the Constitution prohibits him from doing.
The extremist left wanted President Bush impeached. In fact, John Conyers is promising President Bush’s impeachment…right after the election. By saying that he’d vote for President Bush’s impeachment, Tinklenberg’s placing himself with extremists like John Conyers and Keith Ellison.
It’s also worth noting that Mr. Tinklenberg arrived at this decision before particular articles of impeachment had made their way out of the House Judiciary Committee. I don’t see the difference between that thinking and denying someone being prosecuted the presumption of innocence. Tinklenberg’s essentially saying that he’s voting on the verdict before he hears the evidence.
If Tinklenberg is willing to suspend his use common sense to pander to extremists, what other things is he willing to sell us out on once he gets to Washington? I suspect alot, especially considering the fact that he’d be a former lobbyist living in the lobbyist capital of the world.
People have disagreed with Michele Bachmann, sometimes sharply, but people know where she stands. They also know that she won’t quit the fight just to please a lobbyist.
That’s the difference between a spineless panderer and a leader with a titanium spine. That’s why Michele Bachmann will be re-elected to represent the people of MN CD-6.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, (D-MI), promised supporters that he’ll proceed with impeachment hearings after November’s elections:
At a gathering of liberal activists in Washington on Tuesday, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) was asked if he would commit to holding the Bush administration accountable once a Democrat is in the White House and illegal acts have been pinned on President Bush.
“Yes, you have my word on that,” Conyers replied. He then shook the questioner’s hand as a sign of his commitment.
Conyers, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, told an audience at the liberal Take Back America Conference that he is wrestling with the idea of beginning impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Cheney, but he believes that such an effort might hamper Sen. Barack Obama’s chance of winning the presidency. However, Conyers guaranteed his liberal audience that he will pursue legal action against Bush after the November elections.
In other words, impeachment is purely a political consideration. If Rep. Conyers thinks that President Bush had committed high crimes and misdemeanors against the Constitution, then he’s got an affirmative responsibility to hold hearings ASAP. We can’t tolerate a president causing a constitutional crisis going unpunished.
“Dear friends, this [impeachment] is a decision I am struggling with, and I want to share it here. Do I want to jeopardize the election by taking up this issue?” Conyers asked. “The problem is, this could become the issue of the 2008 election. This brilliant, talented Senator (Obama), who has more delegates and more votes than anybody else, could get derailed.”
When Cybercast News Service asked Conyers to clarify the statement, he said, “I am afraid they would raise it in the campaign, and that they will use it against us, and that we would end up getting McCain. I would regret that for the rest of my life,” he said. “That’s the only reason. That would be my fear.”
But Conyers told Cybercast News Service this does not mean the Bush administration will not be held accountable. “We can win this election and go get these guys afterwards. But we just don’t want to jeopardize November 4th,” he said.
TRANSLATION: It’s about politics. Rep. Conyers doesn’t care about constitutional principles. Rep. Conyers cares about winning elections and accumulating power. That Rep. Conyers has that little respect for the Constitution’s high standard for impeachment testifies to his priorities.
We shouldn’t be surprised considering he’s a moonbat in good standing with the ACLU and MoveOn.org crazies.
Cross-posted at California Conservative