According to the
AP, John Conyers, in his ongoing fight for what's right in government, is pushing for resolutions to censor Bush and Cheney for lying to the American people about Iraq.
In response, the RNC spokesperson Ana Marie Hauser said if Conyers "spent half the time condemning terrorism that he does condemning the President of the United States, he would be a credible voice in the war on terror."
Among the many differences between Republicans and Democrats is that Democrats don't waste our time arguing the inarguable.
Well, that's not entirely true. We do spend time arguing that torture is bad, that global warming is real, and that the President is not infact a monarch. But that's only because our distinguished opponents won't give in on these regards.
Maybe the reason they keep winning is because they stand for so little. Everyone might not agree with universal healthcare. But everyone agrees in "Terrorism is bad", "Support the Troops!", and "Moral Values". The more they repeat it, the more people think that they are actually standing for soemthing.
But let's call them on this crap. I'd love to see Conyers say, "That's the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats don't feel the need to convince people that terrorism is bad. We work to fight evil and fight for the ideals of this country. Republicans are 0-for-2 in that regard."
The Republican Party stands for nothing, so the best they have is that Democrats refrain from stating the obvious.