Thomas Sowell spells it out by asking a series of questions:
. . . Do we really want Congressman Alcee L. Hastings, who was impeached as a federal judge and removed from the bench due to charges of accepting bribes, put in charge of a committee handling top-secret national intelligence?
Do we really want far-left Congressman Dennis Kucinich to be chairman of the subcommittee on national security?
This is the same Dennis Kucinich who once introduced a bill “to abolish all nuclear weapons,” who has refused to condemn Hezbollah terrorists,
calling instead for us to have a “recognition that connects us to a common humanity and from that draw a flicker of hope to enkindle the warm glow of peace.” Poetic but dumb.
Do we really want John Conyers to become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, when he has already indicated that he wants to use that position to impeach the president — which is to say, to absorb endless hours of White House staff time answering his charges instead of spending those hours dealing with one of the most dangerous international situations ever faced by this nation?
Then there is Congressman Charles Rangel, who has favored tax increases time and again and bitterly denounced tax reductions equally as often and as loudly. He would become chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, in charge of tax legislation, if the Democrats win control of the House of Representatives.
On the Senate side, do we really want Senator Pat Leahy to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he and Ted Kennedy pioneered the techniques of character assassination of judicial nominees known as “Borking”?
The only judges who could get confirmed under Leahy's chairmanship would be the kind of judges who will create new “rights” out of thin air for terrorists, as they have created new “rights” out of thin air for criminals, and who would impose gay marriage on the country, regardless of what the people or their elected representatives want. . . .
Sowell concludes,
Some people are justifiably angry at some of the Republicans in Washington. But voting to vent your emotions will have national and long-lasting consequences, both through lifetime judicial appointments and through the prospect of seeing the United States denied the resources needed to fight international terrorists at a time when our future and our children's future are on the line as never before.
UPDATE: Click here for Nancy Pelosi's voting record. A taste:
In the National Journal's 2005 ideological ratings, which were based on scores of votes, Mrs. Pelosi was ranked more liberal than 91 percent of her House colleagues on economic issues, 96 percent on social matters and 82 percent on foreign-policy issues
Read the whole editorial and have your eyes opened. Pelosi could become the next Speaker of the House of Representatives.