John Conyers: What Of Impeachment?

[Jamel]

It had been my intention to write on a different topic, but after reading Race is the Tripwire for the Progressive Movement: John Conyers and Impeachment, by Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Jr., I felt compelled to write the following:

There has been a bit of a buzz emanating for some time from certain quarters about impeaching President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Recently with this buzz has come a virulent attack by certain white so-called progressives and leftists upon US Representative John Conyers who is a member of the Democratic Party and Chair of the Judiciary Committee in the US House of Representatives.

So what of impeachment?

http://www.blackcommentator.com/240/240_keeping_it_real_conyers_impeachment.html

[Totally Committed]

1. Once again, The Black Commentator has helped me see things differently...

I'm not sure I always agree with them, but they always make me think and consider things from their point of view without condescention. I appreciate that.

These excerpts (in particular) were particularly thought-provoking.

What needs to be impeached (i.e. dismantled) by the majority of the people is this entire filty, hypocritical, bloody, racist, capitalist system. How is impeaching the Bush / Cheney ilk going to provide the immediate decent shelter, clothing, food, and education needed by the victims of Katrina in particular, and Black and other people of color throughout the US? How is impeachment going to provide the immediate viable health insurance and health care so desperately needed by many millions of Americans of both genders and all colors? How is impeachment going to dismantle and stop the US military / corporate killing machine ravaging this planet, and supported by most politicians of both the Democratic and Republican Parties? To reiterate: What needs to be impeached by the majority of the people is this entire filthy, hypocritical, bloody, racist, capitalist system.

Herein lies another important flaw that is not at all merely a matter of so-called "partisan politics." To the contrary, the Democratic and Republican Parties of this nation are simply two wings of the same Party. They fundamentally do not represent the vast majority of the people. Nor have they ever done so. "The Democrats" (and their Republican counterparts) have, by their very nature, already failed us, which is why brother Malcolm X correctly referred to the Democrats as "Dixiecrats," and to both so-called parties as being either a "fox or a wolf." Thus, attacking John Conyers and clamoring for impeachment might serve adequately to assuage the consciences of some in white America, but it does not seriously address the horrible ongoing systemic injustices and 21st century economic apartheid, experienced on a daily basis by Black, Red, and Brown peoples in this nation. Only real systemic change will do this.

>snip

Finally, the public attacks upon John Conyers have nothing whatever to do with "racial betrayal." To the contrary, those public attacks were naive, desperate, and tactically & strategically incorrect - it would have been much better to go after House members (particularly any on the Judiciary Committee) who agree with Pelosi that impeachment is "off the table". Nonetheless, whether impeachment of George W. Bush and / or Dick Cheney were to proceed or not is not at all the point. It is the system itself that must be changed, not merely the Democratic or Republican Party puppets / managers that represent it.

In the final analysis, the majority of Black, Red, Brown, and certain disenfranchised White peoples in America know that the most effective way to keep it real at this stage in history is to really change the system.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/240/240_keeping_it_real_conyers_impeachment.html

I will probably re-read this article several times today. I'm not sure I will ever be anti-impeachment, but I can definitely see where they are coming from in their defense of Conyers. I do wish they would consider that implicitly and specifically Conyers kind of made promises he evidently had not intention of keeping, and that is one thing that has brought a lot of anger onto him. I can only speak for myself, but my disappointment with his current position has nothing to do with his color or racism in any form. And I think it is defeating to imply that any criticism of an African-American is based on the color of his/her skin. It may be sor some, but not for all, and lumping us all together could tend to alienate those of us who are definitely non-racist.

Anyway, good article. Make s a lot of good points. As a sai, I'll re-read it several times to make sure I "get" it all.

TC

[flashl]

2. Who's zooming whom?

'the virulent and unjustified public attacks upon John Conyers do not in any way serve to weaken or neutralize "the precedent...that Bush has established, which severely oversteps the bounds of executive power." These nasty public attacks are, in addition to being racist and self defeating, quite indefensible … those public attacks were naive, desperate, and tactically & strategically incorrect - it would have been much better to go after House members (particularly any on the Judiciary Committee) who agree with Pelosi that impeachment is "off the table'.

The part that has been puzzling to me in all of this has been the absence of anger and silence about OTHER House members. Solely holding Conyers accountable for the House’s inability to move on impeachment proceedings is bewildering.

[Totally Committed]

3. I totally agree with you... Pelosi's taking impeachment "off the table" without any dialogue

with those of us who busted our humps to get a majority in the House and Senate in the last elections is by far the most indefensible move in all of this. Ans, I have said so here and elsewhere.

Like I said in my post above, though, Conyers made certain implicit and actual "promises" to go after Bush and Cheney whenever he spoke or wrote. I believe that's how he is seen as complicit in all of this. A lot of us saw his Chairmanship of the House Judiciary Committee as essential, and a definite point of getting the majority back. Why? because we thought -- due to a lot of his own words, and our trust in him -- that he would impeach Bush and/or Cheney for their crimes.

I'm disappointed in evry elected official not pushing for accountability from this administration for the death and destruction it has brought on us. I'm sorry, but there it is, and it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the color of Conyers' skin, or Pelosi's, for that matter.

TC

[KoKo]

4. I feel conflicted about Conyers, too. He did make promises so it leaves

him open to some criticism from those of us who trusted him. Black Commentator is always an interesting read, though.

[flashl]

5. Last time I checked

there were 22 OTHER Democrats and 16 Republican members on the judiciary committee. And, if you noticed from the exchange on this board, we are supposedly ALL here for one purpose, to elect Democrats, BUT, you will see a variety of ideas and opinions on any given topic. Why would a rational soul believe that ONE person on a committee with 38 OTHER persons have the power to change the will of the other 38?