John Yang from the News Hour interviewed Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee which investigated the connection between the Russians and the Trump campaign last night. Schiff made some noises about how there were many witnesses and avenues of investigation the Republicans on the committee simply refused the Democrats to pursue, and as a result the committee found nothing to say about the collusion question.
Schiff, who is a former prosecutor, mumbled something about not being sure whether anything Trump did "rises to the level of a crime" and then faded into the background, which was much more interesting than he, the Capitol rotunda, and various tourists, Congressmen and vagrants drifted by, which distracted mightily from the interview.
Had Schiff been of the Republican persuasion, he would have thundered about the "massive, deliberate cover up by the opposition party, who would rather sell out their country than risk damaging the head of their political party," or words to that effect.
But, being a pussycat Democrat, he wimped out.
All he lacked was the pink knit hat with the ears.
Schiff, who is a former prosecutor, mumbled something about not being sure whether anything Trump did "rises to the level of a crime" and then faded into the background, which was much more interesting than he, the Capitol rotunda, and various tourists, Congressmen and vagrants drifted by, which distracted mightily from the interview.
Had Schiff been of the Republican persuasion, he would have thundered about the "massive, deliberate cover up by the opposition party, who would rather sell out their country than risk damaging the head of their political party," or words to that effect.
But, being a pussycat Democrat, he wimped out.
 |
| Let's have a bonding moment and then move on |
All he lacked was the pink knit hat with the ears.
Mad Dog,
ReplyDeleteI don't find Schiff a lightweight-he's just not a loud mouth. Unfortunately, I do agree that the only Democrats on the scene at the moment that truly command attention when they speak are Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. That's a problem.
But now let's move on to the heart of the matter- your condescending comments about the Women's March and your equating that and pink pussy hats with being a wimp. Really? I certainly don't share your dismal view of protests in general, nor do I think you are correct that the Women's March was merely an opportunity for the participants to bond and show off their new pink caps. I believe the original march last year sent a strong message to Republicans and Democrats that women could come together and form a powerful voting block. We'll see if I'm right in the run up to the election in November and how much the candidates try to court women. Hopefully we'll also see that the march served as a catalyst to get women out to the polls-especially young women. I believe it will.
Then there's the #MeToo movement. Men's heads rolled almost immediately because the powers that be-male and female- feared the wrath of an organized women's group. The sheer number of women who turned out to protest in 2017 made it clear there's a lot of women out there willing to come together and take action. #MeToo movement would not have come charging out of the gate nearly as strong had the Women's March not preceded it.. So Mad Dog, I think you need to reconsider your views toward the Women's March and protests in general..you're barking up the wrong tree..
Maud
M,
ReplyDeleteAs usual, you make me rethink my position.
Yes, I could not get past that pink pussy hat thing.
I am still concerned that all those women who took to the streets and locked arms will wipe their hands and feel, "Okay, now it's all done. I can get back to my life."
Demonstrations made a difference in the Civil Rights marches of the 1960's because they were relentless and the ugly image of dogs and fire hoses were enough to disgust white people watching at home, so they changed some minds that needed to be changed.
The anti war marches made people feel empowered but had little effect, far as I can see.
So I'm not sure what effect the marches after the Parkland shooting or the women's marches will have, much as I agree with those who marched.
As for #Me Too, I have to agree women got nowhere through legal channels or corporate channels and your point of the potency of an organization of women to counter balance the power of corporations is one that hadn't occurred to me.
But I still have great reservations about un-examined accusation as a tool of social reform.
Strikes me as insufficient that a score of powerful men resigned or were fired--the real test will be if the corporate boards of these companies are forced to resign and if the companies themselves are brought to trial and convicted after the testimony of the women is heard.
As inept as our legal system is, it's all we've got in terms of a fair hearing.
To give up on the law is to descend into anarchy.
Mad Dog