It’s not just Feingold. It’s Conyers, Boxer and many others in the Democrat Party. The goal is impeachment, and it’s not because there is a smidgen of evidence that he's abused his office or lied under oath, but because they think he's been too energetic in using his powers to defend America.
This is what is at stake in the 2006 congressional elections. See the Wall Street Journal’s editorial today.
3 comments:
I think this is true.
But I really do not think most Americans want to go through this again.
Of course the violence in Iraq leads to lower numbers and that leads to Democrats talking about surrender and impeachment and that leads to more violence in Iraq because the terrorists can see Mr. Feingold as a light and the end of the tunnel of sorts and then comes the lower numbers and so it goes.
Can Feingold be Vallandigham and then try and run as McClellan?
Feingold may dream of betraying allies and doing a cut and run as the Democrats did in '75 but the Viet Cong and NVA didn't have active terror cells in the US. The same cannot be said with any confidence about al Queada. Feingold doesn't even appear to know to whom he would surrender.
I agree with the WSJ point concerning impeachment being the lefty Dems fondest dream but there aren't going to be any more lefty Dems in Congress after November than there are today. Perhaps a few more centrists but the lefty tide is on the ebb - not the flood.
... well, that and revenge for daring to impeach Clinton.
Post a Comment