After the 2004 Election, Air America encouraged me to look into the Conyers Report, which alleged massive election fraud in Ohio. The facts I uncovered indicted the report itself as terribly misleading, even deceptive, leading me to question John Conyers methods and motives.

So I was happily surprised to read this in the WSJ:

The stink is bad enough that some congressional Democrats have taken notice. At a March 19 hearing on election problems, Michigan Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, pressed New York Rep. Gerald Nadler, chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, to hold a hearing on Acorn. He called the charges against it "serious." Mr. Nadler agreed to consider the request.

That paragraph stopped me in my tracks. I re-read it several times. After some thought, I decided I would write about it here, and re-assess my view of Conyers. If he was wiling to investigate even vote fraud by ACORN -- an ally who supports his Party -- then perhaps he really was principled, and just woefully misled or merely incompetent. I was going to praise at least his integrity.

I like doing that, when possible. I'd much rather think of my opponents as misled than corrupt. Misled can be corrected with facts. Corrupt cannot.

But, reading on just to make sure I wouldn't go off half-baked, I learned:

Mr. Nadler's office now says there will be no hearing on Acorn because Mr. Conyers has changed his mind. Mr. Conyers's office released a statement on Monday saying that after reviewing "the complaints against Acorn, I have concluded that a hearing on this matter appears unwarranted at this time." A Democratic staffer told me he believes the House leadership put pressure on Mr. Conyers to back down. Mr. Conyers's office says it is "unaware" of any contacts with House leaders.

Sigh. So much for his integrity.

But this is still an improvement: he is at least inclined to investigate vote fraud -- even from Democrats. He's merely cowardly.

Sadly, that's the problem, writ large: If Democrats like those I know, who claim they're shocked by, and opposed to vote fraud, would actually be more vocal about criticizing their own party and pushing for safeguards, Democratic-controlled states (like my home state of Wisconsin) might start cleaning up their act at the polls. Conyers has ethical impulses, it seems, but they don't surpass his desire to be part of the herd.

"Unity" is not always a wonderful thing.