Why Are They Writing This?
I'm reading the paper this morning, and come across an op/ed piece by John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat, called "No Rush To Impeachment" and wondering why I'm reading it in the paper.
Then it hits me, at least a few of the ultra-liberals in the party; Pelosi last week and now Conyers; are starting to realize that the impeachment platform isn't going to win new voters to the party. Anti-Incumbancy and dissatisfaction against both parties is at an all time high, so sounding a moderate tone to attract new voters is important.
So, in an effort to sound moderate on the topic, the party is now telling us that they just want hearings, and see where they go.
Conyers makes an interesting statement about that, on the topic of WMD in Iraq:
As they have pointed out, Italy, France and Germany, two of whom haven't participated in Iraq, all still stand by their intelligence about Saddams WMD program.
I find these sudden changes of heart, and constant reminders that 'we won't rush to impeachment' to be more of a wink and a nod to the far left who's crying for it, a kind of 'don't worry, we won't rush, but we'll get there' statement.
I'd have actually liked to have read an in depth op/ed on what Mr. Conyers, and the rest of the Democrats would do if they regained the majority in the House, instead of more of what they aren't going to do.
Technorati Tags: Democrats,politics, John Conyers,Nancy Pelosi ,George Bush, 2006, elections, Congressional Elections, Impeachment
Then it hits me, at least a few of the ultra-liberals in the party; Pelosi last week and now Conyers; are starting to realize that the impeachment platform isn't going to win new voters to the party. Anti-Incumbancy and dissatisfaction against both parties is at an all time high, so sounding a moderate tone to attract new voters is important.
So, in an effort to sound moderate on the topic, the party is now telling us that they just want hearings, and see where they go.
Conyers makes an interesting statement about that, on the topic of WMD in Iraq:
For example, to know whether intelligence was mistaken or manipulated in the run-up to the Iraq war, we need to know what information was made available to -- and actually read by -- decision makers and how views contradicting the case for war were treated.This question was already answered, on a unanimous vote by the Senate Intelligence Committee. They conducted an extensive hearing on the issue already, and found that while the intelligence was flawed, it wasn't cooked.
As they have pointed out, Italy, France and Germany, two of whom haven't participated in Iraq, all still stand by their intelligence about Saddams WMD program.
I find these sudden changes of heart, and constant reminders that 'we won't rush to impeachment' to be more of a wink and a nod to the far left who's crying for it, a kind of 'don't worry, we won't rush, but we'll get there' statement.
I'd have actually liked to have read an in depth op/ed on what Mr. Conyers, and the rest of the Democrats would do if they regained the majority in the House, instead of more of what they aren't going to do.
Technorati Tags: Democrats,politics, John Conyers,Nancy Pelosi ,George Bush, 2006, elections, Congressional Elections, Impeachment
posted by Crazy Politico at 5:36 AM
3Comments:
I'd have actually liked to have read an in depth op/ed on what Mr. Conyers, and the rest of the Democrats would do if they regained the majority in the House, instead of more of what they aren't going to do.
--------------------------------
Okay, we know you would've liked to have read that but did you expect to :-)?? It is amazing with the Republican's troubles that the Dems can't come up with a clear, concise plan for people to grab onto. The Republicans may be struggling but the Dems are still a bigger mess. John Conyers is one of the biggest embarrassments to the Democrat party in my opinion.
Let em over reach as long as they do it before the election. Let em repeat all the GOP mistakes of 96.
Besides, who want CHENEY TO BE PRESIDENT?
Post a Comment
<< Home