2006 brings out the Nuts

Fire of Liberty
As we watch Rep. John Conyers(D-MI) natter on about setting up an investigative committee to see if President Bush's actions in Iraq are considered impeachable offenses(He's convinced from his own "investigation" that Bush is guilty as charge even though Congress gave the President the go ahead)as well as Sen. Russ Feingold calling on the Senate to censure President Bush for authorizing wiretaps on folks in the US who are talking to known al Qaeda agents within the world(Which is legal with regards to FISA), they tend to be playing up to the left-wing activists and saying to hell with what kind of message this sends to our enemies. Now while no-one doubts that the Democratic leadership in Congress would love to see President Bush fall, they're also afraid of being tarred as wild-eyed leftist during the 06 campaigns, which explains why they've begun to distance themselves from Conyers and Feingold by proposing their so-called agenda of the future, which includes things like providing all of America's households with broadband within five years or proposing economic protectionism like Senator Schumer is calling for.

I for one enjoy watching Democrats running away from Senator Feingold and Rep. Conyers because it keeps them divided and worried about losing their base and getting the votes to retake the House in 2006.(The Republicans also have to straighten their affairs and return to conservative principles like fiscal responsibility, limited government, ethics reform(lobbyists and earmarks.) What's even more funny is that Conyers, Feingold, and their supporters who call for President Bush's removal fail to realize that if Bush is gone then they would have Dick Cheney as the Commander-in-Chief. As Windsor Mann points out in this piece over a National Review Online, the protestors are so busy constructing their silly signs and attending all of the rallies but seems to have forgotten to take time to read the Constitution or they discover that they'll end up getting something worse(in the left's eyes) than they bargained for. Take a look at what Mann has to say about the whole nonsense:

Whether Bush were to step down voluntarily or involuntarily is not a trivial distinction. A Bush resignation would allow Cheney to accede, while a forced overthrow could conceivably expel them both. When lining up outside the White House, did any of the demonstrators contemplate the line of succession looks like?

After Cheney comes Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, and after Hastert comes president pro tempore of the Senate, Alaska'’s very own Ted Stevens, then Condoleezza Rice, Treasury Secretary John Snow, Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and so on and so forth.

Since Hastert has no apparent ambitions of higher office, groups like WCW and CCR face an obvious dilemma. If it were up to them, which do they prefer: Ted StevensÂ’ bridge to nowhere or Dick Cheney'’s highway to hell? (Bill Clinton'’s bridge to the 21st century is no longer an option.)

Those in the pro-impeachment crowd are making it clear that they stand for change, but only that. And thanks to the Twenty-fifth Amendment, change starts with Cheney.

I suggest that these people get to reading real soon.