So, let's suppose that Democrats do indeed win all the seats the pundits and so-called experts say they're supposed to win and obtain a majority in the House. Will this be acceptable?
I don't think so, not when they've already telegraphed their intentions to not only hamstring the Administration for the next two years, but to work themselves into such a rightous fury, complete with articles for impeachment and censure. Think I'm kidding? They've already introduced H.Res 635 (complete with 37 Democrat cosponsors) to investigate articles of impeachment, H.Res. 636 (18 cosponsors) to censure President Bush, and H.Res. 637 to censure Vice President Cheney.
It's this scenario that Don Surber muses on when writing about President Pelosi. She stands in line to become President of the United States if Bush and Cheney are both otherwise removed from office.
And the Democrats are using a tool designed to go after legal malfeasance - for crimes and misdemeanors (like perjury, obstruction of justice for example) to instead attack the Administration's policy decisions because the Democrats didn't like the outcomes of multiple elections and even their own policy positions (hey, don't point out the fact that so many Democrats actually voted for the Authorization to use military force in Iraq - or that Democrats were actually in control of Congress at the time - those are such inconvenient facts).
Others blogging: Confederate Yankee.
UPDATE:
Will Democrats try and hide the fact that their agenda calls for investigations and talk of impeachment?
Absolutely. They have to. They have no choice. They've been running from those introduced bills, even as they were there to boost their standings with the formerly fringe leftists who are now firmly in charge of the party. Deny and deny. But the bills are there for all to see.
It would get in the way of their chances of taking control because people - especially Republicans who might be waiverings - might actually realize that Democrats are more interested in settling scores (aka political revenge) than they are in dealing with the threats posed by Islamic terrorism. They're not serious about national security, and when they make mention of Iraq, Afghanistan, and national defense, it's always in the vein that we've done wrong and that the only way to do right by the world is to retreat and withdraw. Anti-Americanism has been around for a good long time, and it didn't sprout suddenly when Bush took office. It will not magically disappear when a Democrat takes office, though the media will certainly try to make that illusion happen.
That's why those House bills are so curious - as is their sponsorship. Why would Democrats think that wise to telegraph their moves unless they think that they can get away with it and that people would actually approve of such actions - up to and including impeachment of a President in a time of war against an Islamic enemy that could care less if you're Democrat or Republican simply because they're both infidels who are not sufficiently Muslim for their liking. It is the Democrats pursuit along these lines that shows themselves to be unserious about national security and that their interests reside in the petty and partisan domestic squabblings.
Others blogging about what Democrats might do if they take control of Congress include Don Surber (who overloaded his employers' servers when he got a Drudge link), Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, Doug Ross, Blue Crab Boulevard, Sister Toldjah, AJ Strata, Stop the ACLU, and Greg Tinti (from whom I cribbed the links to the denials that impeachment and investigations will be part and parcel of the Democrat takeover of Congress).
UPDATE:
And if you think things are any better in the Senate, think again. Sen. Feingold introduced S.Res. 398, calling on the censure of President Bush (3 cosponsors).
No comments:
Post a Comment