When Maxine Waters said, " we will be the fairness cops ", we should have know that the statement was only spin. I tried to give her every benefit of my doubt, until now!

She is one of a group of Democrats, who decry the Republicans as partisan, no matter what their position is. They even create partisanship out of thin air, by first requesting one thing and then the opposite; after the Republicans grant their initial wishes. Did they think the public was really that dumb?

It should be obvious to all, after seeing Abbe Lowell's presentation to the House Judiciary Committee, that a large portion of the House Democrats will be acting like the President's personal defense team. Ofcourse, Maxine Waters is in the forefront, on trying to pin the partisan nature of these Democrat defense lawyers on the Republicans?

She, and the other Judiciary Committee Democrats, try to say that the bogus Democrat replacement, for the Republican ( as originally requested by the Democrats ) Rodino-like procedure model for inquiry into the impeachment charges, is fair. Fair? It tries to limit the scope and imposes time limits on the proceedings. This would only allow the Democrats to impede and delay the proceedings, until the date certain is reached. Who can forget the way the Democrats on Senator Fred Thompson's Campaign Finance Hearings delayed and defended the DNC and the Whitehouse until it reached it's end, while concealing the evidence of Red Chinese involvment with them, in our elections. This doesn't sound fair to me, as ultimately Thompson's allegations were, at least partially, proven to be true! The Democrats only offer this pseudo replacement, so they can say, to their constituents, that they voted for an impeachment inquiry ( even if disingenuously ).

She continues in her attacks on Ken Starr and Republicans in general, and repeats the Whitehouse spin-mantra of " it's all about sex ", like an old record that has been laying out in the sun too long.

She says that Clinton will not be a lame duck. Isn't he by definition, a " lame duck " President?

She raises her voice and tries to act like her opinion is gospel, while addressing adult legislators like they were a group of Sunday school children. This make work well at DNC fund raising events, but who is she trying to kid?

Lastly, is it really fair to the process, for her to announce every step as being unfair, just because she personally disagrees with the possible outcome? Wouldn't a party genuinely interested in fairness, give the process at least a bit of a chance before denouncing it, in it's entirety? It is really a shame, that the House Democratic Black Caucus doesn't include any folks like Alan Keyes or J.C. Watts.

- Bongo ( there's no place like home...there's no place like home... )