The Conyers Legacy

[davidswanson]

By David Swanson

About 47 of us spent 8 or 9 hours yesterday in jail for protesting a man who, at least when he woke up yesterday morning, only thought of himself as on the side of those who protest power.

While hundreds of us lined the hallways outside Chairman John Conyers' office, one of his staffers approached the door to his office but was unable to enter. The place was wall-to-wall media inside, with Cindy Sheehan, Ray McGovern, and Rev. Lennox Yearwood giving a press conference in Conyers' office in his absence. They'd gone in to speak with Conyers, but it would take him quite a while to show up.

The staffer was annoyed and complained to his colleague "It's bad enough they shut the office down with phone calls." Another staffer, this one rather pleased about it (the police, too, were on our side and three of them quietly accepted Impeach Bush and Cheney shirts), told me they were getting a pro-impeachment phone call every 30 seconds. They were also flooded with Emails and with thousands of faxes yesterday. But the message was not getting through to the Congressman.

He and several staffers met with Sheehan, McGovern, and Yearwood. It was a heated discussion. Conyers began by proposing to discuss impeachment sometime in August at a town hall meeting. We've been doing those for years. We held a huge one in Detroit in May that Conyers agreed to speak at. He showed up and left before it started. Yearwood, Sheehan, and McGovern told Conyers his time was up.

What was Conyers' objection to moving forward on impeachment now? Well, he said, if he were to do that Fox News would go after him and accuse him of being partisan. I kid you not. The Democratic Chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee is basing his decisions on whether a Republican cable TV station would approve. As Cindy Sheehan told me outside the jail last night: "If I based my decisions on Fox, I would never do anything."

As long as Conyers is working for Fox, maybe our next sit-in needs to be in their studios.

But Conyers expressed another concern as well. He's concerned about his legacy. I wish there were a kind way to tell him that he is about to flush it down the toilet. Conyers' judiciary committee staffers, who were in the meeting yesterday, including Ted Kalo, Perry Appelbaum, and Jonathan Godfrey, produced a year and a half ago one of the best reports summarizing and documenting the crimes of Bush and Cheney. Conyers is aware that Bush and Cheney are killing people every day that he refrains from fulfilling his oath of office. He knows that nearly a million Iraqis and 4,000 U.S. troops lie dead already. He knows that this president and vice president kidnap, torture, and murder human beings. But when pressed to act with the urgency appropriate to saving lives, Conyers replied that our nation has always killed people and that he wasn't "going to play politics."

At other times, Conyers told our delegation that they needed to wise up and move from working on justice to doing politics. But politics has become a bad word because of the way Conyers uses it. He places elections highest in the order of priorities and refuses to do his job in between elections because that would be "politics."

We elected Democrats in 2006 so that Conyers would have the committee chairmanship and move on impeachment. If he fails to act, he will quickly discover that yesterday was just a warm-up.

This Thursday and Friday, members of ImpeachForPeace.org, World Can't Wait, and After Downing Street will meet to discuss impeachment with Congress Members Maxine Waters and Keith Ellison, and with the offices of Jerrold Nadler, Adam Schiff, Robert Wexler, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. We'll be delivering petitions for impeachment from all over the country.

Now is the moment for every member of Congress to take a stand for justice. Which side are you on, John?

Your legacy, Chairman Conyers, is about to be remade by the American people, and all the good and noble things you have done will be overshadowed by your grand finale: the enabling of fascism in our country.

[emulatorloo]

1. Did you run out of Republicans to attack and protest? Because I think there are still

plenty of them running around.

Conyers is doing a hell of a job, which is frustrated at every turn by Republicans spouting well coordinated talking points and mounting silly parliamentary challenges.

[AndyA]

2. That's not good enough.

Conyers is not doing his job if he's willing to give the serious crimes of Bush and Cheney a pass. It's his job to perform oversight, checks, and balances, and with knowledge of infractions staring him straight in the face, and with the demand for impeachment from the American people, he's willing to ignore it for political reasons.

In my opinion, that makes him a good example of exactly what's wrong with our country today. He's not part of the solution, he's part of the problem.

I've always been supportive of Congreeman Conyers, but enough is enough!

[emulatorloo]

5. Up is Down, Black Is White in the topsy turvey world of DU some times

Watch CSPAN sometime -- you will see who the true obstructionists are. The republicans are so coordinated in their efforts to protect Bush it is vile, criminal, and disgusting.

Conyers is one of the good guys who is trying to do the right thing, and no amount of sophistry is going to change this good courageous man into a bad one.

[AndyA]

9. I do watch C-Span. In fact, it's on right now.

Stop trying to make excuses for Conyers.

The fact is, he isn't doing all he should be doing. You know it, I know it, and he knows it. That's why the approval ratings of Congress have dropped to 14% right now.

The Republicans have ALWAYS been obstructionists unless the agenda item fits into their game plan. This is nothing new. Conyers has been around long enough to know this.

Conyers needs to stop worrying about politics and start doing his job. Then he'll have my support back, as well as that of the majority of the American people.

[emulatorloo]

38. Approval of Congressional Democrats is 46%, not 14%

14% is the whole congress, Democrats have 46% approval rating.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1421332

[MrMickeysMom]

27. How can you CLAIM this, based on what was reported of yesterday?

Of course, the republicans are coordinated beyond pale with all their counters to protect this Bush crime family. That is PRECISELY why John Conyers is the last stop in seeking representation and fulfillment of Constitutional due process.

If John Conyers' answer was as reported, it was in the tone of impotence to do anything toward impeachment progress. THERE ARE NO ALTERNATIVE MEMBERS with whom we should confront. What? Do you want us to collectively SHIT out another Judicary Chair for you to take this to?

Yeah, I was rude just then. But how ridiculous is the argument to be made that this man is functioning as he should? HE IS NOT!

What part of this story is not getting through, given that it is a true account?

For God's Sake, Jesus Tap-dancing Christ!

[emulatorloo]

37. Well, I don't believe everything I read on the internets. People have been misquoted many times

before, and things have been taken out of context many times before as well.

[MrMickeysMom]

53. That question's going to be answered soon enough with more hearings...

... isn't it?

Then, I hope we don't waste too much time in our congressional districts, or taking it to the streets.

[FredStembottom]

22. The Dems have put themselves in the position of blocking

the door to impeachment. The Democrats! MY Democrats!

If they are going to stand as defacto guards for the Bush admin. (Why? Why? Why? When the polls are now decisively WITH them! Nothing to lose anymore!) - they are going to get all kinds of reactions.

They have put themselves in that position. And justify it by counting imaginary votes! They refuse TO MAKE THE CASE for impeachment of an American virtual dictator!

It's here! Madison's nightmare is completely in place! And the Democrats WON'T EVEN PRESENT A CASE AGAINST that dictator!?!?! Because of phantom possible future votes!?!?!?

All kinds of reactions will now ensue.

:nopity:

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. There are no republicans running the judiciary committee

And Conyers' staff is complaining about phone calls from citizens. Time to dethrone this bastard. And Pelosi.

[John Q. Citizen]

25. John Conyers, as chair of the House Judiciary committe, has the power to

move impeachment forward, if he so chooses.

Can you name any parlimentary proceedures the Republicans in the house can use to stop him if he so wished to move impeachment forward?

Are you serious that John Conyers is afraid what Republicans say about him? I sure hope not, because if fear of Repos saying mean things is the problem, perhaps it's time he looked for different work. What do you, or he, expect? That Repos should be saying nice things about him?

[tandot]

3. I am so glad they finally protested a Republican

...oh wait...Conyers is a Democrat.

All that energy wasted on an ally instead of trying to sway moderate Republicans to support us.

No, thanks.

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. Please explain how Conyers is an ally

He refuses to do his constitutional duty. He had citizens arrested in his office yesterday. He is more worried about an election 16 months from now than a monstrous regime in the White House.

Oh I guess he could be considered an ally within the Democratic party. The party that funds the war instead of ending it and the party that refuses to impeach the worst president ever. But he is no ally to the American people. Not even close.

[tandot]

43. That is your opinion. Will's post reflects mine:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1417958

[Bake]

49. He had citizens arrested who refused to leave any other way.

He met with them. He talked with them. He gave them a healthy shot of realism, as has been reported elsewhere (by McGovern, I think), "We don't have the votes." They didn't like the answer they got, so they refused to leave. At that point, it seems to me, arrest is proper.

Citizens under the Constitution have the right to petition their government for redress of grievances. They were allowed to exercise that right. They do not have the right to get the answer they want in every instance.

My God, he had CITIZENS arrested! Well, yeah ... and I think that was their goal.

By the way, Swanson's account differs somewhat from what I read in McGovern's account, posted elsewhere on DU. Who's right? Who was actually in the room? Or is everybody just making it up as they go?

Bake

[miceelf]

4. This

has to be one of the most assinine things I've ever seen.

Protest John Conyers of all people.

Geez.

First of all, impeachment was NOT the main issue in the 2006 election. Second, you're punishing Conyers for not being God. Why don't you go protest Michael Moore or some other right wing tool?

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. Actually ending the war was the main issue of the 2006 election

And the Dems have not done that, now have they?

[Totally Committed]

6. He's being truthful here.

Conyers has been the patron saint of most of our causes. He's stood up fo all the right things, but while walking the walk and talking the talk, has accomplished very little.

I applaud Conyers, but what the OP says cannot be denied. If left as it is right now, Conyers' legacy will be quite different than with hose of us who can remember the things he, at the very least said.

TC

[aquart]

11. Myopic much?

[Totally Committed]

40. I get it. You're not a fan of mine.

But, do you really want to spend your time going from thread to thread and "rebutting" me with your pithy little put-downs? Wouldn't you just rather have your say, and let me have mine?

Honestly.

TC

[madfloridian]

7. David, you just accused Conyers of being a coward.

That is a shameful thing.

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. He IS a coward

He has placed party over country. And his staff is complaining about phone calls! That was the part that just sent me over the edge!! And it spoke volumes - about where Conyers is now and where he intends to take this country. Any elected representative who complains about representing the people is not worthy of my support and yes, I will call him a coward.

[Stinky The Clown]

8. The exit is over there. You're invited to make your way to it.

I simply cannot condone crowing over how brave and right you think you are to protest a guy like Conyers.

I find this disgusting.

Conyers, I have no doubt, will push for the impeachment many people (including me) want when the time is right.

Am I happy he's waiting? No. But the reason is that the votes aren't there ...... yet. But each day we get closer.

But for you and your troop of political clowns to do your song and dance in HIS office is beyond the pale. You make those of us who favor impeachment look like clowns simply by association.

[Bake]

50. Amen, Stinky!

Well said.

Bake

[aquart]

10. What self-righteous drivel.

"Working for Fox" is slander.

PLEASE don't comfort yourself with the appalling delusion that you are speaking for the American people. You are absolutely not speaking for me, for one.

And you went after NADLER????" MY congressman? MINE? A man I am so proud of he makes my buttons burst?

Nice policy. Attack only friends and leave your enemies alone.

[Flarney]

12. What's wrong with lobbying our leaders? n/t

[aquart]

13. "Lobbying"?

Oh, that's what it was. I see. "Lobbying."

[Flarney]

34. Nice response, too bad there was no substance to it...

...I don't see anything wrong with trying to influence our REPRESENTATIVES. What was wrong with what happened with Conyers? He's a big boy, isn't he? They need to hear us loud and clear...some of us are worried about war with Iran so we're kind of beyond sending nice letters.

[aquart]

35. "He's a big boy"?

No, honey. He's a man. He doesn't stage tantrums. He just works his ass off.

And I really appreciate how superior your protest is to the rest of us. Yes, indeedy, you're the real deal. The rest of us are just useless wimps.

Now why don't we all rise up and follow you? I guess you're the only good American.

[emulatorloo]

36. Pressuring sure. Trying to destroy and vilify one of the best reps we have, no

I don't care for it.

[Bake]

51. I wouldn't call it lobbying.

I'd call it exercising the consitutional right to petition the government for redress. Unfortunately, upon said petition, there is no constitutional right to get the answer one wants in every instance.

Nor is there a constitutional right to occupy a government office AFTER the congressman has met with the citizen, heard the petition, discussed apparently at some length. Just because you don't get the answer you want doesn't give you the right LEGALLY to stay until you do get that answer ...

Frankly, I'm disgusted by the whole sorry episode. Some people need a healthy dose of realism: WE DON'T HAVE THE VOTES. To get the votes, we're going to need more than a few Republicans to stand with us. Go occupy THEIR offices.

Bake

[Tuesday_Morning]

14. Bravo, David!

Thank you.

[proud2BlibKansan]

15. "It's bad enough they shut the office down with phone calls."

THE most important part of your whole post, David! A staffer for one of the most powerful Democrats in DC has actually complained that citizens are calling their office!!

Unfuckingbelievable.

What exactly does he think his job is??

[Stinky The Clown]

21. His job is to serve his constituents

If those calls all came form the home district, he's wrong.

If those calls came from outside his district, **you** ought to rethink your posit.

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. As the head of the judiciary, he represents AMERICA

Also, he has no way of knowing who is calling when he is just hearing a phone ring. So he is shutting out ALL callers, not only those who don't live in his district.

Here is what a true patriot told me regarding who represents us in Congress:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3395003&mesg_id=3395131

[madfloridian]

23. There are others who have needs and wants besides Cindy and David and PDA

There are other views, and there are some who might be in crisis and need to get through.

[proud2BlibKansan]

31. That's what 911 is for - crisis calls

:eyes:

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. "We elected Democrats in 2006 so that Conyers would have the committee chairmanship and...

move on impeachment?"

Really? Which members of Congress ran on that platform?

[Psyop Samurai]

47. Every last one of them, to this audience. .n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

54. Can you provide any quotes from the candidates to back this up?

:shrug:

[Psyop Samurai]

55. No. Nor, according to this arcane game of politics, should we expect any...

...gotta keep those cards close to your chest; there's a strategy at work; just hang in there (or so we're told).

What we have is John Conyers' record.

And the Dem candidates (no matter what their record) were convincingly sold by those who "know better" to skeptics in this very forum based on the promise of accountability.

[madfloridian]

24. Does anyone in this thread care about Gonzo today?

Or does that not matter.

[John Q. Citizen]

28. Yes, Gonzo is bad. What are you going to do about it? Complain?

Say Gonzo is bad? Wait until the 2008 election when "we have the votes?" Go protest at Gonzos office?

Let me know when any of those things produce results.

If it matters to you, you might want to very quietly, very meekly, and in very respectful language, ask the people who run congress to stomp their feet and also say Gonzo is bad. Then you can declare victory, and watch Gonzo prosecute some more Dems on trumped up charges.

[proud2BlibKansan]

33. And what do you think the Dems are going to do about Gonzalez?

Send him a censure letter? :rofl:

Maybe they can take away his cell phone and car keys!!

Yes I think the efforts of the Dems so far to reign in this administration are about as effective as grounding teenagers when they misbehave.

[madfloridian]

26. Here's the link to the webcast for the Gonzo hearings.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=2842

So which senator are you going to declare a coward?

Just wondering.

[John Q. Citizen]

29. Thanks David for the report. It's a sad day for America when John Conyers is

more afraid of FOX than of the destruction of the constitution.

[Old and In the Way]

32. How depressing.

I agree with impeachment, but why not put the heat where it belongs? The obstructionists are Republicans...we need to make this a bi-partisan effort if it's to be effective. You could have shown the American voter that the real enablers of the Bush Administration are Republicans...make them pay the political price for support of this criminal administration. Instead, the message is that good Democrats like Conyers are no better than Republicans. And you wonder why Congress has such a low rating? I'm sure we'll have our corporate media spreading your message - there not a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats.

[Perry Logan]

39. Somehow, liberals always think it's brilliant to attack their own people.

[John Q. Citizen]

41. And partisans think party over country will carry the day. But where will it carry it?

[Pooka Fey]

42. K&R

[mopinko]

44. right on david.

these frickin' pr games that our dems are playing are just so transparent. stop fooling around. stick your damn necks out. we gave you a majority. f'ing use it.
conyers told us before the election- give me a majority, give me subpoena power, we'll get the job done. he said the i word many, many times. time to keep your campaign promises. all of you.
why not protest the rethuglicans? because we did not elect them, they did not promise us anything. the dems, conyers specifically, did. time to hold their feet to the fire.

[LWolf]

45. This just makes me sad.

I have been a supporter of Congressman Conyers for a long time. He's wrong on this one. I'm sad to see it taint his legacy, and I'm sad to see Democratic Hyenas circling the discussion, looking for blood.

[Totally Committed]

46. Ditto. Exactly how I feel, too.

Very well put, LWolf.

A sad day, alright.


TC

[Psyop Samurai]

48. I'm with LWolf. .n/t

[FreepFryer]

52. Why EXACTLY is 'now' the moment to initiate impeachment? The committee's work continues...

Note that I think impeachment is coming, so I totally support your efforts to continue to protest and create noise.

And while I agree with the general sentiment that 'enough is enough', I didn't elect him to 'move on impeachment' as a foregone conclusion, I elected him to 'move on his job', which is to chair the judiciary committee in its investigations. It's the committee which, I believe, rules tomorrow on contempt against 2 Bush officials, and which has held very substantive hearings on a number of Bush administration crimes despite the ongoing obstruction of justice by the Bush administration.

So, given that the evidence is being gathered and public sentiment is rising for impeachment I'm not sure I understand the indignation directed at him, at this time.

I would just ask that you direct it at the Republicans, rather than our own heroes INSIDE the system, and I'll be on your side.