Putin's Trump And Moscow Mitch

“Putin's Trump and Moscow Mitch do not work for America!” That Democratic (and democratic) war cry is inspired by Joe Scarborough calling Mitch McConnell, "Moscow Mitch." Ah, what the hell. Let's act like Republicans and try to have it both ways.  If someone asks Joe Biden what he thinks of Trump's nickname for him Biden should laugh, then he should say: “You would think that someone who has spent the better part of sixty years practicing middle school insults could come up with something better than sleepy Joe, wouldn't you?"

One last thing.  On the subject of impeachment. Do the right thing. It will please your friends and confound your critics. The Democrats must keep their oath to defend the constitution. If Trump has committed impeachable offenses, and he has, he must be impeached. Furthermore, the political cost for doing the right thing is not what the timid seem to think it is. As The Hill has reported:

“Professor [Allan Lichtman] who has correctly predicted 9 presidential elections says Trump will win in 2020 unless Democrats impeach.”

While I am not prepared to go as far as Professor Lichtman has, I will say that Democrats need to draw a strong distinction between their party (the party of patriots) and a Republican Party that now places its own partisan interests ahead of the best interests of this country. Donald Trump is a lawless president who is a clear and present threat to this country, its security, its institutions, and its democracy. Democrats must impeach him regardless of whether his morally bankrupt party prevents his removal from office! It is the right thing to do, and it draws a strong contrast between the Parties!

Trier Of Facts

I am so damn sick of media pundits demanding drama and babbling about the political eye wash they euphemistically call optics. The reaction to Mueller's testimony during the hearing conducted by the Judiciary Committee is a perfect example of what I am complaining about. Long before Mueller agreed to testify he gave a press conference in which he indicated that his report was his testimony, and virtually everyone who has worked with Mueller said we should take him at his word – that he will not answer questions outside of the report and that it is highly unlikely that he will expand upon or explain the statements in his report. No matter, the pundits said. They said his testimony will be the movie everyone watches rather than reading the book. Yet when Mueller did precisely what he said he would do all the pundits went into panic mode. No drama, they wailed; his testimony lacks the optics needed to persuade the people! Silly me, I should have expected the pants wetting and hand wringing. I should have expected the pundits to quote Democrats as saying the hearing was a disaster. I should have but I did not. So I found myself actually saying: “wring out your undies, look at the facts presented, watch the next hearing, and wait to see how the public reacts.

I will grant you that I did not get out of bed at five in the morning* to see the beginning of that hearing, but what I did see set forth the evidence of Trump's obstruction of justice rather well. This did not even come close to being a disaster. Bear in mind that courtroom testimony rarely produces the drama or “optics” the pundits seemed to demanding, and yet jurors still weigh the evidence and they still render verdicts based upon the facts. While there were no surprises in the testimony for anyone familiar with the report, that does not mean the testimony did not have an impact on people learning about Trump's obstruction for the first time.

The next hearing, conducted by the Intelligence Committee, was masterful. Adam Schiff knocked it out of the park. Rather than trying to get Mueller to state legal conclusions about conspiracy or collusion Schiff concentrated on questions of ethics, patriotism, and national security.  Mueller relaxed a bit and became more responsive.  He expressed his concern over Russia's interference in our elections and expressed his fear that it could become our new normal.  Perhaps the most dramatic and unexpected response from Mueller came when chairman Schiff asked if knowingly accepting help from a foreign power to win an election was unethical? To which Mueller relied, “Yes. And a crime.”

I think the Rolling Stone really shows the full impact of the hearings in an article that presents a list of statements Mueller affirmed as accurate. Those statements are absolutely damning to Trump. These hearings are a beginning rather than an end, but time is of the essence. The impeachment process must begin soon!  The sooner the better.

*Who cares if people on the west coast have to get up in middle of the fricking night to watch the hearings. The west coast is already blue! 

Internecine War?

During the mid-term elections of 2018 a surprisingly large number of Democratic candidates said they would not vote for Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the house. To what can we attribute this opposition to Nancy Pelosi within her own party? Could it be that the Republican Party's unrelenting efforts to vilify Ms. Pelosi were that effective. There is probably some truth in that contention, particularly in districts where Democratic candidates were trying to win over independents and the misnamed Trump Democrats, but that vilification does not explain why some liberal candidates also said they would not vote for Pelosi as speaker of the house. The opposition of freshmen representatives to Speaker Pelosi is not explained by ideology either because Speaker Pelosi has some impressive liberal bonafides. So what is going on here? Is it simply a matter of young Turks saying thanks for your service but it is our turn now; give us the reins and get out of our the way?

In regard to what is now being called the squad (Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Taib, and Ayanna Pressley) the Washington Post reports Nancy Pelosi as saying:

“Their ability to work together — or refusal to — will have major implications for Democrats as they seek to oust President Trump and retain their majority in next year’s election. Pelosi knows that fate of her majority rests with the moderate Democrats who captured Republican-held seats in last year’s midterm elections.”

This quote is a strong clue in regard to answering the questions I posed above, but before I try to explain that I should inform you of where I am coming from. I am an old progressive who has become increasingly frustrated with a Democratic Party that has allowed itself to be pulled farther and farther to the right and away from its base as it struggles to compromise with an opposition party that has become more and more nihilistic and has absolutely no interest in compromise. Meanwhile the wealth gap continues to increase by leaps and bounds, leaving threatened members of the middle class to ask if and when they will be put on the endangered species list and become eligible for some protection from the rapaciousness of the wealthiest one percent. Needless to say that I am just one of a multitude of people now complaining about the miasma of corruption and greed, and the increasing political and economic power being amassed by an oligopoly that wants it all.

Nancy Pelosi is the epitome of the established leadership, and she is taking some heat for how that leadership is perceived.  From where I sit it is perfectly understandable if a younger generation thinks we have failed them, and that the old way of doing things is not working. There is a sense of urgency, and it is not just liberals who feel that way; it is also the Trump chumps, and even many people who call themselves independents because they seldom pay enough attention to know the differences between the parties. But the impatience and anxiety of liberals in general and younger liberals in particular does not mean there is an unbridgeable gap between generations or ideologies in the Democratic Party. Which is to say that contrary to the desire and belief of Republicans there is no internecine war within the Democratic Party at this time. As the Washington Post pointed out, the squad has not tried to form an organized opposition group like the freedom caucus, nor has it called Pelosi out for setting aside liberal priorities such as Medicare for all. The problem for Democrats is that the dispute between Nancy Pelosi and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez in ongoing. We need a reconciliation between Pelosi and the squad, and we need a party that is not so afraid of losing elections that it will not do what is right for this country!

To Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party leadership let me say: Do not be timid or afraid of your constituents.  Do not pander to their fears or their worst instincts. Have the courage to sell a positive, progressive agenda that will make a real difference in the lives of people who are not billionaires. Sell the hope, the dreams, and the realistic aspirations that make America so dynamic and great.  Do not tell the young to wait.  Invite everyone to move boldly forward as the party of great ideas and great deeds.  And when the Republicans shout socialism remind the voters that Republicans still call Social Security, Medicare, The Affordable Care Act, the Minimum Wage, and Unemployment Insurance "socialistic" programs.  Furthermore do not shy away from pointing out the moral depravity of the Trump Administration and the Party that refuses to condemn that depravity! Demanding human decency is a duty we all share!