Donald Trump is a joke and a failed President, although he is a canny marketer.
But the Democrats are not good marketers. As Don Draper might say: They have not told a compelling story.
The Democrats from Adam Schiff to Jerry Nadler to Chuck Schumer all have the same talking points:
1. They have to vote articles of impeachment because they have "sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution."
2. Donald Trump has tried to usurp the power of the legislative branch.
3. Donald Trump has tried to extort (or if you prefer "blackmail") a foreign leader to help him get re elected.
But here's the problem.
1. I have a copy of the Constitution and nowhere in it can I find the clause or article or amendment Mr. Trump has violated. Exactly which passage is it that Mr. Trump has violated? If you say it's the "treason" clause, there isn't much there defining what treason is beyond taking up arms against the government, and clearly, for all the stupid and dangerous things Mr. Trump has done, he hasn't done that.
2. Clearly, by refusing to provide documents or witnesses to the House of Representatives Trump has denied their right to attempt to hold him accountable. But this would only matter if we can imagine what he has done is bad enough to remove him from office. At most, he told Ukraine they were not getting the money Congress sent until they kissed Donald's ring and announced an investigation to help him win his election. That's nasty, and it undermines a key ally Congress was trying to help, but many Americans will say, "It's up to the President to conduct foreign policy. True, in this case he wanted something for himself and he didn't see saving Ukraine was all that important, but just because Congress wanted to save Ukraine doesn't mean the President has to want that. That's his call.
Who cares about Ukraine anyway?
Putin says it's not even a real country. When did Congress get the right to dictate foreign policy?"
Or, the other response is:
"Oh, that's just LBJ twisting arms. Politicians swap favors all the time--vote for the navy base in my state and I'll vote for food stamps for your state. Everyone, domestic and foreign, tries to horse trade.
And everyone, from New Hampshire to California, from Israel to North Korea, tries to influence our elections, one way or another.
Bibi Netanhayu spoke before Congress trying to boost Trump."
Donald Trump has offended the Democratic members of the House of Representatives because he has not followed norms. He has conducted foreign policy to gain his ends rather than the ends the House was pursuing.
But he was sent to Washington to break norms, to "drain the swamp" to act differently. That he is doing. It offends Democrats but elections are there to determine if he has offended a majority of the public.
3. Extorting foreign leaders is not a crime, as far as I can see.
We don't want our own President bought by a foreign government to pursue that nation's agenda for his own personal gain.
But how many people care if our President tries to buy a foreign leader for his own personal agenda?
True, he's using taxpayer money to do it, but when LBJ sent over billions to support Vietnam so he could win the war to win his election, how different was that?
Before the 1968 election, Nixon learned of an impending breakthrough at the Paris peace talks which might have ended the war in Vietnam before the 1968 election.
Nixon needed that war to continue so that he could win the White House. Nixon was riding anti war sentiment toward victory.
So, when it looked as if LBJ was about to succeed in ending that war, Nixon conspired with Anna Chennault, a well connected Republican, to get the South Vietnamese to leave the talks, (promising they would get a much better deal from him if he were elected than the near abandonment they were facing from LBJ at that time.)
And Nixon succeeded in torpedoing the peace talks. The South Vietnamese walked out on the Paris talks, and the war continued right through the November US election, which Nixon won.
As a result, the war ground on for 6 more years with thousands more American casualties, 50,000 by war's end, not to mention the 2 million Vietnamese dead.
To my mind, THAT, was an impeachable offense.
Or a hanging offense.
But the fact is, although the Dems appear to be playing at Impeachment as if it is non political and really a "trial" for "crimes."
Unfortunately, they have not yet defined the "crime." It's not burglary. It's not receiving a bribe. It's not ordering torture of prisoners at Gitmo.
It may be a crime to try to become king. Rejecting Congress's powers and insisting the only legitimate power in our federal government is the President is offensive, but is it a "crime"?
As far as Mad Dog can discern, this is really a political move, a power grab: This guy refuses to work with Congress.
Even if the Supreme Court orders him to step down after a conviction in the Senate, he just might, being Donald Trump, refuse to do this. He might say: "Try and make me!"
Impeachment has always been political: Andrew Johnson was impeached for try to undo the outcome of the Civil War by destroying Reconstruction; Clinton was impeached because the Republicans hated him and thought they could play the sanctimony card, even though his accusers, in grand total, had had more affairs than he had. And now Trump.
Why not just say it? He is an illegitimate President because he lost the popular vote.
A "trial" by definition, means the "judge and jury" listen with an open mind, having not decided until all the witnesses are heard and all the facts presented.
But from the outset, Democrats have clearly made up their minds. The hearings were window dressing.
This charade of Democrats condemning the Senate Republicans for having prejudged the "case" before the trial in the Senate is such transparent blather.
Has Schumer not made up his mind about how he will vote in a Senate "trial"?
Just because you have the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court sitting there in a black robe, is there any doubt how the Republicans on the "jury" will vote?
Is there any doubt about how the Democrats will vote?
The fact is, Trump has once again out maneuvered the Democrats. His Tweet site now has a banner of Trump pointing at the viewer saying: "This is not them coming for me. They are coming for you. I just got in the way!"
He's not very bright. He's not very effective. But, oh, does he know how to market to that group of voters who love him.
But the Democrats are not good marketers. As Don Draper might say: They have not told a compelling story.
The Democrats from Adam Schiff to Jerry Nadler to Chuck Schumer all have the same talking points:
1. They have to vote articles of impeachment because they have "sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution."
2. Donald Trump has tried to usurp the power of the legislative branch.
3. Donald Trump has tried to extort (or if you prefer "blackmail") a foreign leader to help him get re elected.
But here's the problem.
1. I have a copy of the Constitution and nowhere in it can I find the clause or article or amendment Mr. Trump has violated. Exactly which passage is it that Mr. Trump has violated? If you say it's the "treason" clause, there isn't much there defining what treason is beyond taking up arms against the government, and clearly, for all the stupid and dangerous things Mr. Trump has done, he hasn't done that.
2. Clearly, by refusing to provide documents or witnesses to the House of Representatives Trump has denied their right to attempt to hold him accountable. But this would only matter if we can imagine what he has done is bad enough to remove him from office. At most, he told Ukraine they were not getting the money Congress sent until they kissed Donald's ring and announced an investigation to help him win his election. That's nasty, and it undermines a key ally Congress was trying to help, but many Americans will say, "It's up to the President to conduct foreign policy. True, in this case he wanted something for himself and he didn't see saving Ukraine was all that important, but just because Congress wanted to save Ukraine doesn't mean the President has to want that. That's his call.
Who cares about Ukraine anyway?
Putin says it's not even a real country. When did Congress get the right to dictate foreign policy?"
Or, the other response is:
"Oh, that's just LBJ twisting arms. Politicians swap favors all the time--vote for the navy base in my state and I'll vote for food stamps for your state. Everyone, domestic and foreign, tries to horse trade.
And everyone, from New Hampshire to California, from Israel to North Korea, tries to influence our elections, one way or another.
Bibi Netanhayu spoke before Congress trying to boost Trump."
Donald Trump has offended the Democratic members of the House of Representatives because he has not followed norms. He has conducted foreign policy to gain his ends rather than the ends the House was pursuing.
But he was sent to Washington to break norms, to "drain the swamp" to act differently. That he is doing. It offends Democrats but elections are there to determine if he has offended a majority of the public.
3. Extorting foreign leaders is not a crime, as far as I can see.
We don't want our own President bought by a foreign government to pursue that nation's agenda for his own personal gain.
But how many people care if our President tries to buy a foreign leader for his own personal agenda?
True, he's using taxpayer money to do it, but when LBJ sent over billions to support Vietnam so he could win the war to win his election, how different was that?
Before the 1968 election, Nixon learned of an impending breakthrough at the Paris peace talks which might have ended the war in Vietnam before the 1968 election.
Nixon needed that war to continue so that he could win the White House. Nixon was riding anti war sentiment toward victory.
So, when it looked as if LBJ was about to succeed in ending that war, Nixon conspired with Anna Chennault, a well connected Republican, to get the South Vietnamese to leave the talks, (promising they would get a much better deal from him if he were elected than the near abandonment they were facing from LBJ at that time.)
And Nixon succeeded in torpedoing the peace talks. The South Vietnamese walked out on the Paris talks, and the war continued right through the November US election, which Nixon won.
As a result, the war ground on for 6 more years with thousands more American casualties, 50,000 by war's end, not to mention the 2 million Vietnamese dead.
To my mind, THAT, was an impeachable offense.
Or a hanging offense.
But the fact is, although the Dems appear to be playing at Impeachment as if it is non political and really a "trial" for "crimes."
Unfortunately, they have not yet defined the "crime." It's not burglary. It's not receiving a bribe. It's not ordering torture of prisoners at Gitmo.
It may be a crime to try to become king. Rejecting Congress's powers and insisting the only legitimate power in our federal government is the President is offensive, but is it a "crime"?
As far as Mad Dog can discern, this is really a political move, a power grab: This guy refuses to work with Congress.
Even if the Supreme Court orders him to step down after a conviction in the Senate, he just might, being Donald Trump, refuse to do this. He might say: "Try and make me!"
Impeachment has always been political: Andrew Johnson was impeached for try to undo the outcome of the Civil War by destroying Reconstruction; Clinton was impeached because the Republicans hated him and thought they could play the sanctimony card, even though his accusers, in grand total, had had more affairs than he had. And now Trump.
Why not just say it? He is an illegitimate President because he lost the popular vote.
A "trial" by definition, means the "judge and jury" listen with an open mind, having not decided until all the witnesses are heard and all the facts presented.
But from the outset, Democrats have clearly made up their minds. The hearings were window dressing.
This charade of Democrats condemning the Senate Republicans for having prejudged the "case" before the trial in the Senate is such transparent blather.
Has Schumer not made up his mind about how he will vote in a Senate "trial"?
Just because you have the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court sitting there in a black robe, is there any doubt how the Republicans on the "jury" will vote?
Is there any doubt about how the Democrats will vote?
The fact is, Trump has once again out maneuvered the Democrats. His Tweet site now has a banner of Trump pointing at the viewer saying: "This is not them coming for me. They are coming for you. I just got in the way!"
He's not very bright. He's not very effective. But, oh, does he know how to market to that group of voters who love him.
No comments:
Post a Comment