I actually agree with Ustwo that a two-party system does a far better job of preventing crazies from getting elected than parliamentary systems. We don't have a British Nationalist Party or National Front, for example. Not to say that a few don't filter in amongst established parties anyway.
However, no majority party in the history of Congress has ever abused power the way the Republicans have. No majority party in the history of Congress has ever denied the minority party on a committee the right to call witnesses. No majority party in the history of Congress has ever gaveled close an active subcommittee hearing simply because they felt like it.
These are just a couple of recent examples.
So yeah, I think what Conyers and the Dems did was perfect. If the Republicans refuse to even hold hearings or allow Democrats the right to speak, then the Democrats should simply hold these hearings elsewhere.
Furthermore, while the Democrats are obviously engaging in these trials in part for political reasons, cause, you know, that's their job, they are only doing what the country wants.
Quote:
BUSH'S JOB APPROVAL
Now 5/2005 5/2004
Approve 42% 46% 41%
Disapprove 51 48 52
Bush's job approval dropped significantly since last month among people aged 30 to 44, from 52% to 40% now. Approval among those in middle-income households (incomes between $30,000 and $50,000) also dropped, from 46% in May to 40% now. Bush also lost ground among white Catholics.
U.S. MILITARY ACTION IN IRAQ
Now 4/2005 1/2005 10/2004
Right thing 45% 47% 45% 53%
Should have stayed out 51 48 49 42
By 60% to 40%, Americans think things are going badly for the U.S. in Iraq rather than well.
|
People want to know why Iraq is FUBAR.
Link