Not only is it not true, the question is useless.

John Nichols’ latest article applauds Al Franken and asks this question:

“Some might chuckle at Franken’s line: “Bush is lucky that he had a Republican Congress, or he almost certainly would have been impeached and imprisoned.” But does anyone seriously question, after all the revelations regarding the doctoring of intelligence and the deliberate deception of Congress and the American people by the president and his cronies, that an independent Congress would now be reviewing impeachment resolutions?”

I would because the Democrats are so good at going along to get along. A majority of them supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq (including three of their most visible members, Senators John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama). This illegal and unethical invasion and occupation is what George W. Bush’s presidency will be known best for. Hillary Clinton dismissed universal health care at least twice (once in 1993, another time in 2004) as millions more go without health insurance, and up-and-coming member, Barak Obama, goes along and supports Bush’s position on the war[1] and confirms Gonzales and (correction, thanks to an anonymous poster—Obama voted against Gonzales’ confirmation) Rice. How about how the Republicans and Democrats working together to marginalize third-party and independent competition right off of the TV “debates” (really just rehearsed readings) through dirty tricks? Or how Democrats take corporate money for their campaigns, assuring that they don’t really listen to the public. There is plenty to not like about the Democrats.

Franken’s question is useless as framed. What would have happened if a Democrat-majority Congress were elected is simply not as important as what is happening now and what the Democrats could do to convince the country that they have a message worth hearing. They could drop their corporate funding and get their money from the people; then we’ll know they’re listening to us. They could work toward hearing political competitors and real TV debates so that the public gets to hear about issues the two corporate parties haven’t addressed adequately (or, in some cases, at all). They could stand for government-funded national health insurance. According to Dr. Steffie Woolhandler of Physicians for a National Health Care Plan, 2/3rds of Americans would back this, but this was back in 1992 when Americans were more financially flush.

It’s too bad that none of this will happen. It will take an organized effort by the people to challenge the government to require adequate coverage of things people stand for.

And as for Al Franken, I’m hardly surprised. He’s a Democratic Party stooge.

[1] Shortly before his DLC speech, Obama was quoted as saying

“On Iraq, on paper, there’s not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago.”


“There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute.”.

As recently as late September 2005, Sen. Obama told an audience in Champaign, Illinois that he remains steady on his course to support Pres. Bush’s position on the war—Sen. Obama hoped that US troops “could begin to leave Iraq next year, [but] removing the troops now would result in a massive bloodbath for both countries.“. Check the link for a list of other charges against Sen. Obama including the lame reason given for voting against Gonzales.

2 thoughts on “Not only is it not true, the question is useless.

  1. You’re quite right, my error. However, the reason he gave for that vote is troubling as it is basically continued support for the war along Pres. Bush’s line. I have amended the text of the post to make this more clear. Thanks for the correction.

Comments are closed.