This is an interesting article about all the political ramifications of the Democrats headlong Dumpster-dive into impeachment.
Among the topics it covers are the latest polls that show strong opposition to impeaching Trump in key battleground states the Dems have to win, how many votes Nancy Pelosi needs to pass her long-delayed whatever-it-is resolution, and how many endangered Democrats from Trump districts can safely vote no and still have it pass (if you think Pelosi didn’t already calculate that before even scheduling a vote, then I have some prime DC swampland I’d like to sell you.)
Unspoken in all this is how the political ramifications are so important because that’s all there is to this whole brouhaha. The Democrats have been lusting for impeachment since the minute Trump won the election, and they finally got so antsy they could no longer control themselves and hurled themselves at the nearest warm body, which turned out to be this ridiculous Ukraine “scandal.” Trump already released the transcript of his phone call showing there were no “high crimes” committed, so we’ve now having secret testimony with strategic leaks for maximum political damage to Trump, all thus far based on longtime DC dwellers getting their snoots out of joint because Trump isn’t doing things the way they would (yes, we know, that’s why we elected him.)
The impeachment of a President amounts to the overturning of a national election and the will of tens of millions of voters. It should be done in public, subjected to the most rigorous legal scrutiny and based solely on clear evidence of high crimes warranting such drastic action. (And not even Tom Brokaw thinks they’ve got “the goods” on Trump.)
If they’re actually looking at polls to see if they should support impeachment or not, that’s a sign that this is nowhere near the level or seriousness required for real impeachment hearings. The Democrats need to put up or else zip up, grow up, and show up back at work.
President Trump’s critics may not realize just how much they’re embarrassing and discrediting themselves with their pathetic efforts to spin the killing of ISIS leader Baghdadi as a negative or otherwise to deny Trump any credit. Trump is a master at pulling the rug out from under his arrogant critics, from releasing the transcript of his call to Ukraine’s President that they never imagined he’d release to quarterbacking a brilliant mission that took out Baghdadi just as they were accusing him of helping ISIS.
For instance, we had genius military strategist “Beto” “Patton” O’Rourke claiming that the mission to kill Baghdadi was successful “despite” Trump’s leadership. He said this on “The Daily Show,” which appropriately airs on Comedy Central. Since Baghdadi had been the leader of ISIS since 2010, can we therefore say that his continuing leadership of ISIS as it spread across the Middle East for six years happened “despite” President Obama’s best efforts to stop him?
And then, we had the shadow Joint Chiefs on “The View” slamming Trump for not sharing information about the secret mission with Nancy Pelosi and Adam “Leaks like a broken spaghetti strainer” Schiff, in violation of the “rules” and the “chain of command.” (FYI: there are no “rules” or “chain of command” that compels the Commander-in-Chief to inform Congressional leaders - or leakers - of military strikes.)
To wash all those sour grapes out of your mind (and to blow the minds of Trump’s kneejerk critics), here’s an assessment of what’s happening from an entirely different point of view. This is predicated on the wild and crazy thought that maybe Trump does know what he’s doing, and maybe it’s better than continuing to repeat the same failed policies we’ve followed for years from arrogant elitist blowhards who think they know more than anyone else but who have actually brought disaster to everything they’ve touched.
At least, “Saturday Night Live’s” cast and writers aren’t the only Trump haters with embarrassingly bad timing. “SNL” laid a giant egg by airing a sketch about Trump “making ISIS great again” just as the successful raid that killed ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was announced. But they were hardly alone in their omelet-faced humiliation:
Just one hour before Baghdadi’s killing was announced, Arizona Democrat Party chairman Felecia Rotellini declared at a voters’ conference in Phoenix that by pulling out of Syria, Trump has “aligned himself with ISIS.”
So now Trump is on the side of terrorists that he’s done an incredibly effective job of exterminating? This must be the same way he proves he’s a racist by creating record-low minority unemployment, or a sexist by appointing more high-level women than any other President in history, or an anti-Semite with his staunch support of Israel. So for those longing to hear me join in the negative spins on everything Trump does, here you go: he’s the most incompetent racist, sexist, anti-Semitic ISIS supporter I’ve ever seen.
And his opponents are the most incompetent predictors of the immediate future that I’ve ever seen.
The Gov. replies to reader on Andrew C. McCarthy's opinion piece
I take exception to almost everything McCarthy opines. What a prig!
Presidents since Washington have found occasion to utilize personal emissaries to help them conduct foreign policy. DIM icon, FDR, was the most prolific at this with Harry Hopkins. Hopkins undertook the most sensitive missions, including preparing for Lend-Lease of warships to Great Britain when the American Congress was intent on keeping the U.S. out of the European conflict.
McCarthy has an opinion (a guesstimate) about what the President’s motives were, nothing more. He could have more productively advised by ending his piece after the first paragraph and spared us the agony of the trip through his labyrinthine mind. Presidents were conceded huge latitude in dealing with foreign affairs, almost entirely out of the purview of the Legislative Branch, because they often require personal relations, sensitive negotiation and quid pro quo. Only in the past 70 years have we allowed Congress to wheedle into this Presidential function . . . and we have not won a war since.
I would like McCarthy to focus on the fact that the Ukraine was a far bigger problem under the past administration and was made worse by Biden’s “oversight.” Russia had far more influence then and committed unprecedented extra-territorial incursions and acquisitions then. President Trump overcame, and is still overcoming, the Obama regimes enlistment of the corrupt dysfunction of the Ukrainian government to defeat Trump in an American election.
The President has a duty, not just a personal vendetta, to uncover how that happened. Screw whether he’s got a personal emissary or a Secretary of State doing it. Almost all of the language I hear from equivocators like McCarthy coyly coach the President to duck behind The Deep State instead of decisively leading.
To people like McCarthy, President Trump is just bumbling through success after success. He certainly has no cognitive reasoning behind his conduct. It’s emotional behavior bordering on irrational. Bullshit! The man is two to three steps ahead without the artifice of political scheming.
So, Governor, I respectfully disagree with your coronation of Pope McCarthy.
RELATED READING: Swampy "impeachment inquiry" witnesses offer OPINION, not evidence
From the Gov:
Thanks for writing, Jim, but nobody around here has coronated McCarthy as Pope. I thought his piece offered food for thought –- and in your case, it certainly did –- and presented the opinion of someone who made some good points but who ISN'T what you’d call a fan of Trump. Right now, especially, it can be helpful to go into the mind of someone who isn’t 100 percent critical or uncritical of Trump (and those are increasingly hard to find), and McCarthy is correct in saying that the President, by perhaps not choosing his words more carefully, has made problems for himself.
Taken as a whole, that was McCarthy’s own opinion, not mine, but he did make some of the same points both you and I have.
For example, there’s the point that other Presidents have used personal emissaries to work around the State Department to conduct foreign policy. I mentioned that in my piece (thank you for going into more detail), and I believe McCarthy acknowledged it, too. There’s also the point about the huge latitude given Presidents on their dealings with foreign leaders. In fact, these points are part of the case he makes that Trump’s actions do not rise to the level of impeachability.
I agree with you that McCarthy could have focused more on the problems Ukraine posed during the last administration, while Biden was supposedly providing “oversight.” Also, I disagree with him, as you do, on his beliefs regarding Trump’s intentions regarding a quid pro quo. McCarthy’s thinking about that truly is a “guesstimate,” as if he fancies himself a mind reader and is not offering benefit of the doubt. And I agree with you that he doesn’t give Trump the credit he deserves for his many successes. So it’s great that you wrote to provide that balance.