Representative Conyers, Resign
Tags: Democrat Culture of Corruption, House Democrats, Leftist Groups.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. has backed off his plan to investigate wrongdoing by the liberal activist group ACORN, saying “powers that be” put the kibosh on the idea.
Mr. Conyers, Michigan Democrat, earlier bucked his party leaders by calling for hearings on accusations the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) has committed crimes ranging from voter fraud to a mob-style “protection” racket.
“The powers that be decided against it,” Mr. Conyers told The Washington Times.
You are the “powers that be”, you fool – either investigate fearlessly, or get out. We need men and women with courage in Congress, not the likes of you.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
38 Responses to “Representative Conyers, Resign”
Caucus of Corruption
Is “resign” your new verbal tic or something?
orlando,
Seems that way – but, lets face it, if we could get rid of 80% of the clowns in DC, we’d be better off…any random 535 Americans would likely to better than the corrupt power structure we currently have.
Simply because he abandoned an obviously fruitless task (with the Democrats solidly in power, all it’d have the potential to do is annoy the heck outta them) does not mean he should resign.
I’m for the investigation of ACORN, because I don’t think wrong was done. Of course, FOX is not my news source, so maybe I’m missing something here.
Investigators: prove me right! (Or wrong, though I won’t like that nearly as much).
What if the random 535 Americans included me?
fr00tn00b,
You can’t possibly be worse than Nancy Pelosi.
LOL
Mark,
I second all three points. Time to wipe the slate clean.
OK let’s see here, ACORN registers the Dallas Cowboys starting line up as Democrats in California, and Rathke resigns under a cloud.
Yup, nothing to investigate here. Move on(.org)
Even as it battles charges of fraudulent voter registration practices in several states, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, is negotiating to sever all ties with its founder, whose brother embezzled almost $1 million from the group.
http://theunionnews.blogspot.com/2008/10/nyt-rips-wade-rathke-acorns-founder.html
Um. I said investigate.
Um. Conyers said not to.
Yes, but that doesn’t mean he should resign. Based on your logic, all of Congress should resign, because nobody’s pursuing an investigation. Are they?
…..all of Congress should resign,….
That’s an outstanding idea! I am all for it!
lol ur just like Mark
Ms Conyers did plead guilty to bribery charges earlier in the day.
Thank goodness we rushed into that stimulus package!
http://www.cnbc.com/id/31565441
Thank goodness we elected Bush to cause this economic crisis, pass several stimuli of his own, and hand Obama a deficit to balloon, in addition to two wars and…oh never mind
fr00tn00b,
And I bet you’re so proud that Obama is following Bush’s example, if not doing worse in some areas?
I’m not. I don’t approve of the stimulus– though I thought SOMETHING had to be done to clean up Bush’s mess. I’m furious that the deficit is gonna balloon…but, quite frankly, I saw McCain’s tax plan, and his was just massive blanket tax cuts…not very helpful.
Other things that I disagree with Obama on are a result of his necessary compromises with mindless idiot republicans (whoops, I was a bit redundant there).
fr00tn00b,
In what areas do you believe Obama has compromised? I’d like some examples.
Not that it really matters, anyway. What matters is that we should all strive for political justice regardless of party affiliation or background. And the very idea that an investigation is being called off because of political pressure, to me, is not indicative of a just government. Perhaps the investigation would have proved fruitless, but now we’ll never know.
observer20 says:
June 26th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
I’m not very happy with Plan Colombia
leadeconomist,
Please educate me with some details, as I have heard of its name but know nothing about it.
Observer, again, I’m for investigation.
fr00tn00b,
I know, but I’d still like examples of Obama’s compromising.
He wasn’t going for single payer health care, just a government option.
OK, nothing else I can think of. But that’s more than Bush compromised.
“OK, nothing else I can think of. But that’s more than Bush compromised.”
OOPPS…..
Creation for the Department of Homeland Security – Bush wanted only the right most qualified people for the job – instead he compromised on civil service and government unionized individuals.
NCLB…..
Prescription Drug Benefits……
Bailouts…..
Uh, that is all I can think of off the top of my head, but there were more spending bills, I don’t know there names, that I did disagree with. For his efforts to be none partisan and “reaching across the aisle” he was stabbed in the back on several occasions. The same efforts of non-partisanship cannot be said of the Obamateur.
OK, lol, but Bush also had eight years, Obama’s had less than one so far. A lot of his “compromising” you don’t see: he just comes out with a more moderate bill in the first place, cuz he knows that if he proposes anything 100% cool/awesome/useful you guys will shoot it down.
Also,
Obama kept many top positions from Bush, SecDef, eg
Obama is not prosecuting Bush officials for torture
Obama is not prosecuting Bush officials for illegal wiretaps
Again, like you, this is just off the top of my head.
Wait wait wait wait wait. I didn’t fully read your post before responding. But now I see you claim Bush was “non-partisan”. Tell me, do you honestly believe he was? Don’t bring in Obama here– we can argue about that separately. Just tell me if you really think Bush was non-partisan.
(PS- You forgot that failed Immigration Bill that Bush and Kennedy agreed on)
I’m glad to see you have come around on the investigation issue, Mark. I say investigate in earnest. There are a lot of things we could find. But don’t point out that nothing is getting done because of all of the investigations as your side has in the past. As soon as Karl Rove is rotting in the basement, we will know we are on the right path. Who knows, it would likely lead to a whole lineup of convictions of former Bush officials. Let’s get started, this should be fun.
froot,
Bush made non-partisan efforts to “reach across the aisle” with legislation that I listed and which you added to with your PS. Now, you want to leave Obamateur out of it, when you claimed that Obamateur was more compromising than Bush?
It doesn’t work that way. But when can we expect liberals to be fair when history has shown us otherwise? Obamateur has shown us nothing but his hard left ideology and the desire to grow the power of the federal government. His “compromises” are in name only and has labeled the Republicans as the “Party of No”. When the Obamateur was in the “party of no” he and his fellow obstructionists were only “looking to protect the rights of the minority party”.
The liberals, as in the case of Conyers, play by their own rules. When the other party does the same as they did, they are another set of rules entirely for them. If there was ever any consistency in DC, many liberals would be out on the streets looking for another job.
lol, both parties work that way, and if you don’t think so, you’re too much of an optimist. I said leave Obama out in your answer to the question of whether Bush was non-partisan or not, not to completely stop criticism of Obama. I just didn’t want to see something like this:
“”Tell me, do you really believe Bush was non-partisan?”
–fr00tn00b
Well Obama blah blah blah.
–you”
And who cares whether Obama’s non-partisan or not? Given that most Republican ideas are complete failures that do harm to America, I’d rather see him be completely nutso extremist lefty.
And who cares whether Obama’s non-partisan or not? Given that most Republican ideas are complete failures that do harm to America,… – fr00tn00b
Again, how many brown shirts do you own tool?
I think that only an Arnold Schwarzenegger Terminator quote would be good enough to answer you, and it would get deleted, so I won’t post it. Just use your imagination. (No, it’s not, “I’ll be back”.)
But cluster, what an eloquent and persuasive defence of conservatism you offer there. You’ve totally converted me, given your irrefutable logic, and clear results from past policies.
(Not)
fr00tn00b,
It is interesting to note that, with bipartisanship, a president can be both criticized and praised by the same person at the same time.
If he truly does compromise, praise Obama for reaching across the isle and being above touting the party line and all that, while at the same time chastising him for giving in to foolish wishes of the other side and not living up to expectation. If he does not compromise, praise him for being true to his virtues or whatever, while at the same time label him a partisan hack and tool of the corrupt two-party system. Same thing can be said for Bush. You cannot win on this.
Which duality of ideas do you hold?
You’ve totally converted me, given your irrefutable logic, and clear results from past policies – fr00tn00b
It was the only response merited by your inane and unfounded assertion. Unless you actually thought that was an enlightened comment, which wouldn’t surprise me.
“Again, how many brown shirts do you own tool?”
A couple, but I’m more into brown coats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browncoat
You know, observer, that’s actually very perceptive of you. I’m impressed. But of course I’m bound to be biased (so are you, and cluster, you too).
What I actually wish for is more than two parties…the range of problems/issues and scope of each problem/issue as well as methods for solving them is too broad and complicated for two parties to embody all ideas. Besides, each party has a set ideology, so you don’t find all that many Republicans who support even a few Democratic ideals, and the same for Democrats: very few of us (at least in my experience) are more than just a little conservative.
But given the current state of things, I cast my lot with Obama, and don’t really care how compromising he is or not, as long as I like what the government’s doing. I say the same thing for Bush– but I didn’t like what his government did at all. Am I making sense?