If, that is, you’d like nothing more than a high-stakes game of chicken. Byron York summarizes this report, calling it "a detailed road map for the impeachment of George W. Bush, ready for use should Democrats win control of the House of Representatives this November."
While I think a John Conyers-led witch hunt would blow up in the Democrats’ faces, the distraction it would provoke would not be good for our efforts to deal with our determined adversaries abroad. So, despite my temptation, I think I’ll pass.
What really beffudles me is that THIS is the Democrats’ major focus; not the GWOT, not the economy (which doesn’t really need their help), not "poverty" (which their help causes), not civil rights (which they hypocritically accuse the right of destroying), nor any of their other causes. It just goes to show that they really don’t have any ideas, they just continue to chew on the same old stale, angry vomit.
My Bad..sorry. You are absolutely, 100% correct. Can you people imagin Nancy Pelosi a third away from the presidency?
What really beffudles me is that THIS is the Democrats’ major focus . . .
*sigh* No it’s not. This is one article. I am about 95% sure that this "plan" will never see the light of day, regardless of if the Democrats win back the House. They know it would be politically suicide (although I don’t know how inappropriate). They have plenty of ideas . . . they’re all just different than yours. Go to the DNC website or get a DLC pamphlet. Read [i]The Nation[/i]. Read newspaper editorials. We’ve got loads of ideas, we just suck at getting together and implementing them. The Democrats major focus is not on Bush . . . it’s on winning back Congress right now.
OK,Matt, you’re a "true" representative of the Dem party. What’s the plan on the GWOT?
Dain -
Did I say anything about being a "true" representative? Did I not list places you could find answers to that question? Would you like links or what?
Matt,
We’ve got loads of ideas, we just suck at getting together and implementing them.
Yes, we all see that. Part of the problem is that there seems to be no central, unifying principle behind all of the ideas beyond, "We think Republicans suck!" Your party needs more than that to convince people who vote. Although, it seems to be very good at convincing people who do NOT vote, but like to participate in polls and I keep wondering who those people are.
When I was very young (and foolish) and a Democrat, I thought I was voting for increased personal freedom for every American when I voted for Democrats. This was my reaction against the Nixon presidency, which seemed liked LBJ’s increased government control plus a law and order layer that made me squirm and look around for another state to attach my adulthood to. There wasn’t one. It wasn’t until Reagan that I found the voice I wanted to hear on the topic of limited government.
Matt, do you have someone who will be talking about less government control and regulation of the American citizenry? Is there anyone in your party with such principles? I am no longer hearing about that from Republicans, so I am open. But looking over the sites you mention, I don’t see that on the agenda, among your "loads of ideas." Oh well.
(i know this isn’t a new idea, but...)
As the opposition party, it seems appropriate (to me) that the democrats should oppose the legislation and ideas of the republicans. Of course they have their own ideas, but since someone else is setting the agenda (i.e. republicans in the white house and congress), it makes it difficult to convey those ideas. a larger number of sensible moderates on both sides would probably help.
Honestly, impeachment is not an issue. Not that it isn’t warrented, it is certainly more so than a lie about a blowjob, but get real. If the last 6 years is the best the Republican party has to offer you deserve to lose and lose big. Oh and while you are voting, remember to thank Bush for creating the largest entitlement program since FDR.
Kate -
Matt, do you have someone who will be talking about less government control and regulation of the American citizenry?
Well, that depends. If you mean keeping the Federal Government out of telling adult homosexuals they can’t marry or medical patients that they can’t take advantage of physician assisted suicide or smoke marijuana then my answer is "yes".
If you mean pulling government restrictions out of the business sphere and allowing a completely free market, all-out capitalist economy reign then my answer is "thankfully, no."
The Democrats are all about personal freedom . . . until you get to the economy (which is where, in my opinion, personally freedom must be sacrificed for economic stability . . . but that’s the Dewey/Ely deep down . . . not an invitation to start a debate). Sorry . . . (not really?)
Ah, Nietzsche was correct about what would become of the bourgeois. Anyway... Matt, currently the federal government is not stopping gay people from getting married, it’s just not recognizing the marriages. That is a pretty substantial difference. And we cannot afford to be a military super-power and still have all of the government provided niceties like Europe - you know which I vote for. Second, Clinton wasn’t impeached for lying about "just sex" as the Democrats successfully painted it; he was officially impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. The investigation started on the fishy Whitewater deal, and then made its way to the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit which is where Clinton lied about his relationship with Lewinsky under oath. But I digress...
No, Democrats, whether you realize it or not, your party’s leadership has serious plans to impeach Bush if given the opportunity.Note how Pelosi responds to questions of impeachment. They might not come out swinging, but they do plan on reaching that point eventually.
$20 says they dooooon’t . . . :-D
I’ll wait until after the elections. If the Democrats gain a big enough majority, I’ll take that bet.
Twistys Presents: Veronica Zemanova