True North

Back in 2006, Elwyn Tinklenberg touted himself as a moderate. He also said that he'd vote to impeach President Bush. My question is why he'd vote to impeach President Bush. Here's what Tinklenberg said just prior to the CD-6 endorsing convention:

"I [Elwyn Tinklenberg] would support a resolution for impeachment if it was brought to me. I would not introduce one. I think there are so many issues that have been waiting for resolution. So many issues that have to be addressed from the war to the economy to health care that we need to move on and move on aggressively." Source: Star Tribune, May 10, 2006

Mr. Tinklenberg must answer this basic question: What did President Bush do that rises to the level of impeachment? Did he cause a constitutional crisis? If President Bush didn't cause a constitutional crisis, then why would Mr. Tinklenberg say that he'd vote for impeachment?

Mr. Tinklenberg said this to pander to the extremists in MoveOn.org. He resisted making any sort of statement on this until just prior to the endorsing convention. Why should we take seriously a man who'd take his constitutional duties that unseriously? This isn't just any issue. This is about the House of Representatives declaring that the Commander-In-Chief betrayed his oath of office by doing what the Constitution prohibits him from doing.

The extremist left wanted President Bush impeached. In fact, John Conyers is promising President Bush's impeachment...right after the election. By saying that he'd vote for President Bush's impeachment, Tinklenberg's placing himself with extremists like John Conyers and Keith Ellison.

It's also worth noting that Mr. Tinklenberg arrived at this decision before particular articles of impeachment had made their way out of the House Judiciary Committee. I don't see the difference between that thinking and denying someone being prosecuted the presumption of innocence. Tinklenberg's essentially saying that he's voting on the verdict before he hears the evidence.

If Tinklenberg is willing to suspend his use common sense to pander to extremists, what other things is he willing to sell us out on once he gets to Washington? I suspect alot, especially considering the fact that he'd be a former lobbyist living in the lobbyist capital of the world.

People have disagreed with Michele Bachmann, sometimes sharply, but people know where she stands. They also know that she won't quit the fight just to please a lobbyist.

That's the difference between a spineless panderer and a leader with a titanium spine. That's why Michele Bachmann will be re-elected to represent the people of MN CD-6.

Comments welcome at LFR.