I don't like either the Russ Feingold-sponsored censure motion against King George nor talk of trying to impeach him. Both, mind you, would be appropriate for the Wretched Regent, but they are likely to provoke a backlash from a now squabbling and fractured Republican base that would backfire badly on a Democratic Party that has trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time.Besides which, I'm not into instant gratification. (Okay, at least not most of the time.) We have nearly three years to go before the king has to leave the castle for good. As a scholar of presidential history, I can predict with certainty that the judgment will be harsh. That's good enough for me.
Fellow blogger Andrew Sullivan shares my concern (or should I say that I share his since Sullivan's Daily Dish is to Kiko's House what Alaska is to Rhode Island) about censure-impeachment in a post appropriately entitled Can Feingold and Kos Save Bush?
While we're piling on the Dems, they continue to do a pretty good imitation of being clueless despite public opinion polls showing them opening their lead in voter preferences for which party should control Congress.
The Wall Street Journal-NBC News Poll has them out ahead of the GOP 50 percent to 37 percent. Can you imagine what the lead would be if they actually had something to say?
Scary.
The same poll shows President Bush's approval rating tanking at 37 percent, while he's at a puh-thetic 33 percent in the latest Pew Research Center Poll.
In an analysis of the poll, Laura Rozen notes at War and Peace that
President Bush's declining image also is reflected in the single-word descriptions people use to describe their impression of the president. . . . The single word most frequently associated with George W. Bush today is "incompetent,"and close behind are two other increasingly mentioned descriptors: "idiot" and "liar." All three are mentioned far more often today than a year ago.
HISTORIC FOOTNOTE
So when was the last time that an American regent, er . . . president was censured?
Taegan Goddard at Political Wire informs us that it was Andrew Jackson in 1834, the censure resolution was quickly expunged, and the page with the resolution literally cut out of the official Senate journal after Jackson's party took power.
If the Democratic party wants to be restored to any semblance of a representative party of American values and ideals then it needs to acknowledge the attempted take over by the Socialist movement that is heavily sponsoired by ANSWER, ACORN and other communists groups. It needs to rid itself of these people or at least acknowledge their presence. If the party doesn't do something soon the Shadow party will soon take over completely. As a former Democrat I am frankly ashamed of that former affiliation. The tired diatribe against the "false" reasons for the war was answered in court by Saddam. I am still waiting for someone in the party with the brass one's to admit that not only was Bush duped, so were the members of both parties, who by the way voted the go ahead. Saddam even fooled the UN [not saying much] and most of the "ciivilized world. His people also admitted in court that al Qaida was in Iraq before the invasion of Afghanistan.
ReplyDeleteIt's time to stop this stupid name calling and constant negative stance and start working together to safe guard our country. But when the powers to be in one of the major political party have a socialist/commuinist strangle hold on that party because they have worked their way up to a party leadership position, laws, political appointments, decisions are dragged out and held up. The American people are not taking time to look up the background, voting records, affiliations, etc. of the people we chose to represent us. Too many are blindly voting strictly by party. That is foolish and dangerous. It has allowed the Socialist take over of the Democratic party in the works.
If you doubt my comments, look up the "Shadow Party," its affiliations, its supporters, and how it came about. If you are willing to keep an open mind long enough to do the research, you will see that this movement began it's momentum back in the late or mid 90's. At that time a reporter wrote an article about the Progressive Caucus which was affiliated on the DSA web site and vice versa. After his story, both changed their sites and removed any record of affiliation. However, the info is there in big bold letters. Are you up to the challenge? I don't met the challlenge as an attack. It is intended as a friendly one.